Jump to content

Old Git

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Old Git last won the day on April 22

Old Git had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Old Git

  • Rank
    Staff Sergeant

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Research, WWII, Normandy, NWE, Royal Engineers, Bailey Bridges, Modelling, Research
  • Occupation
  • Homepage

Recent Profile Visitors

5,107 profile views
  1. Old Git

    Spotted today....

    I think you've proably hit the nail on the head there. So, I've seen the Chinooks and the Apaches, the Lanc, Spit and Hurri should be over soon and then I won't have to go to London next weekend!
  2. Old Git

    Spotted today....

    I'd forgotten that I said I'd post a pic until about 40 mins ago when I was sitting in the Kitchen and a fleet of Apache's went over my rear garden at tree top height! Can't say for certain how many there were, because I'm surrounded by trees here so once they'd past by I could only hear them (bloody loud too). But I counted at least four at the last and guess there must have been six to eight in total! Didn't have a camera either but sitting here with Camera at the ready in case they decide to come back; not ashamed to say that, even though I'm closer to 60 than I care to admit, I was still jumping round the garden and waving like crazy at them. Anyway, here are the Chinooks from a few days ago. Not the best of pics but we were driving at the time and my wife just had time to pull over, dig out her camera and grab a couple of quick shots as they disappeared into the distance! I'm sure there was 12 in total, although this only shows 9, and there was also another copter flying flank on this lot but it too is out of shot! If the Apache's come back I have the camera at my elbow :-)
  3. Old Git

    Spotted today....

    Yesterday in Oxfordshire, about 12 Chinooks in formation flying over (didn't know we had that many operational, must have finally sorted Fadec). Got a piccie too but it's on the Wife's camera. Will get it off her tomorrow and post it up!
  4. Old Git

    Q. Re QF 75mm on Cromwell

    Drawing No.4, Breech Ring, Top View F = 46 mm G = 39 mm H = 35 mm P = 58 mm Q = R = 255 mm T = 95 mm U = 127 mm V = 114 mm Y2 = Y3 = Z1 = Z2 = RA = RC = RD =
  5. Old Git

    Q. Re QF 75mm on Cromwell

    Drawing No. 3, Breech Ring, Right-Side Profile RA = w x d ? RB = w ? RC = h x l x d ? RD = h x l x d ? Bore-1a = how does it differ from right side
  6. Old Git

    Q. Re QF 75mm on Cromwell

    Next up Drawing No.2, Breech Ring, Rear Profile.. O = Q = R = 255 mm S = T = U = V = W = W1 = 35m X = Y1 = Z1 = Z3 =
  7. Old Git

    Q. Re QF 75mm on Cromwell

    Mike is going to re-check his dims before posting them here and when he does that I shall edit the dims in my original post . Now I want to move on to the 75mm Breech Ring. I've worked up some basic drawings showing the breech ring from various angles and have worked out some dims, I've be very grateful if some one can confirm these dims and fill in the gaps where they exist. There are four drawings in total and I'll put them in four separate posts, with their various dims, to keep things better organised. As per the quote from the Churchill manual, "...Except where stated to be otherwise, terms such as left, right, front rear, upper and lower describe the position on the assembled gun of the various parts when viewed from the breech end " So, first up, Drawing No. 1, Breech Ring, Left-Side Profile Below are the dims, as far as I can work them out and I'd be grateful for confirmation and/or filling in of gaps where they exist, (i.e. I, L, & O). Also, Bore 1 /1a has me intrigued and I'd like to see a better photograph of it. It appears to be counterbored but to what depth and is it exactly the same on the left side? What is the little slot right below is this a feature in the Breech Ring or does it allude to some part of the gubbins which goes into the bore? A = 223 mm B = 399 mm C = 284 mm D = 115 mm E = 120 mm F = 46 mm G = 39 mm H = 35 mm I = ? J = 60 mm? K = 41mm ? L = ? M = 38 mm N = 43 mm - (depth of lug) N1 = 64mm - (width of lug at top) N2 = 124mm - (width of lug at bottom, before curve) O = ? P = 58 mm Bore-1 = 32 mm, (all the way through) counter-bored to 40 mm and depth of xx mm ? Bore-2 = 141 mm, counter-bored to 165mm, threaded, depth of 86 mm Bore-3 = 20 mm, (20 mm x 20 mm from top and back face) Bore-4 = 46 mm, counter-bored on rear face to 68mm and depth of 16 mm
  8. Old Git

    Q. Re QF 75mm on Cromwell

    For a couple of weeks now I've been suspecting that some of my dims for the tube on the 75mm are wrong, not all of them but certainly one or two and it's been a bit of a struggle to ascertain where I was out, although I was beginning to suspect it was around section E. The principal reason for suspecting an error was an old chart I found on my NAS which one of my contacts had sent me years ago. It purportedly came from a WWII Soviet evaluation of the Cromwell Tank and when the various labels were translated into English it gave some interesting info, especially on 'Length of Barrel (mm)' and 'Total Length'. As the sum of my dims did not come near enough to these figures I was beginning to doubt myself. The translated table is shown below... So I did a bit of digging and in the CHURCHILL VII AND VIII INSTRUCTION BOOK. ARMAMENT SECTION Covering ORDNANCE, Q.F. 75MM. MARK V and VA... Fitted to CHURCHILL VII. I found the following information... ORDNANCE, Q.F., 75 mm., MARKS V AND VA The 75mm. Marks V and VA guns fire fixed ammunition and are designed for use in tanks as replacement guns for the Ordnance Q.F. 6-pr. 7-cwt., Marks III and V. The barrel is externally similiar to that of the Ordnance Q.F., 6-pr. 7-cwt., Mk. V. Firing is by percussion, and obturation s effected in the usual Q.F. manner by the radial expansion of the cartridge case in the tapered chamber of the barrel when the gun is fired. It may be noted that, with the exception of the the extractor levers and the firing pin of the striker, the majority of the parts comprising the breech mechanism are identical and, therefore, interchangeable, with similarly named and numbered components of the Ordnance, Q.F. 6-pr., 7-cwt., Marks III and V Alternative designs of varous parts are introduced from time to time and incoporated in the equipment, usually to simplify manufacture and thus hasten production. Parts of guns in service may therefore be found to differ in some particulars from those about to be described, but these differences do not usually affect the functioning of the weapon, although they may occasionally concern the user when dismantling or reassembling the weapon. Whenever possible, particulars of alternativr designs have been given. Except where stated to be otherwise, terms such as left, right, front rear, upper and lower describe the position on the assembled gun of the various parts when viewed from the breech end with the gun in the firing position. PARTICULARS Diameter, bore ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2.953 ins. Distance to centre of gravity from breech end - Barrel ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 32.15 ins. Barrel with breech mechanism and muzzle brake ... .32.6 ins. Gauge, Striker protrusion ... ... ... ... ... ..No. 40 (0.148 ins. to 0.158 ins.) Length - Barrel, without muzzle brake ... ... ... ... ... ..107.8 ins. Rear face of breech to muzzle brake extremities ...118.576 ins. Weights (estimated) - Barrel ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3 cwts, 3 qrs. 2 lbs. Breech Ring ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 1 cwt, 1 qr. 21 lbs. Barrel with breech ring and muzzle brake - with breech mechanism ... ... ... ... ... ... 6 cwts, 0 qrs. 20 lbs. without breech mechanism ... ... ... ... ... ..5 cwts, 1 qr. 16 lbs. The data from Churchill book seemed to confirm the Soviet Gun table so I now knew that I'd made a mistake somewhere. I put it to one side until I could find time to dig deeper into it but, by happy coincidence, I had a PM today from Mike with revised dims which he'd taken from the 75mm tube on display at Bovi. Mike, thanks for that very timely piece of info, it saved me a trip to Bovi. For your own information you may wish to know that the threaded section of the tube is 103mm and requires 11 turns to be firmly threaded into the Breech Ring. The Soviet total length (2859.3 mm) would appear to be from the rear of Breech Ring to the end of the Tube, whilst the British/Churchill total length (118.576 /3012 mm) is from rear of Breech ring to end of Muzzle Brake. Doing a quick mental calculation I'd say the portion of the tube, therefore, held within the muzzle brake is, roughly, 85.6 mm 😉 Pete
  9. SWMBO says they must go, and so they must go!
  10. I suppose I could but I get enough grief from the wife about the stuff I've got without adding more to it, so these will go out with the bins tomorrow morning!
  11. The thing is when these were recovered they were in the middle of a big pile of rusted down vehicle. So rusted and corroded that nothing was recognisable in it and any part that we picked up just crumbled in our hands. There was a big headlamp type affair, of the type that one would nomally see mounted on Rollers from the 1920's but it crumbled to nothhing as soon as it was picked up. There were absolutely no etchings whatsoever anywhere on the glass and the state of decay on the metal and the fact that they didn't look at all laminated made me think that whatever it was it must be pre-war. Staring at them again this morning and having another futile search for etchings had me scratching my head again. Then it hit me, they're not windscreens at all.... they're glass shelves for a big -ass drinks cabinet . Where they were found, the pile of scrap around them and the curvature on top and bottom edges all suggested part of a vehicle but, in the end, the more prosaic explanation must be that they are just big glass shelves for a curved drinks cabinet. Now I feel like a bit of an arse! In my defence though I've had these in the shed for a year or so and everyone who has seen them has said the thing to me, "what vehicle are those off?"
  12. No body recognises these? Wow! First time you guys have let me down ;-) Seriously though, they are a bit of a mystery. Given their nature I'd hazard a guess that they're either pre-war or wartime. Their size would sort of pre-clude them from being a rear window so they are either the side windows of some form of estate, or a the front windshield off a one of those old Austins with the square window in front, the curves on the bottom and top edge suggest to me a a front windscreen but I can't for the life of me guess from what.
  13. Anyone know what these ancient windshields are off? I Found these buried in the copse at the end of my paddock. Have no clue what they're off or how long they've been there, but quite a while I'd guess. I think there was an AA emplacement in this paddock during the war, as it's at the approach run onto a WWII Airfield, not that the two are in anyway connnected but one never knows. They're most likely civilian, possibly wartime, and when I first saw these my initial thought was Austin Tilly or something like that, although to be honest I really don't have a clue but I'm sure one of you will know. Given that this is Oxfordshire they might be of a Morris or something? Anyone know?
  14. Old Git

    Q. Re QF 75mm on Cromwell

    Hi David, thans for the reply, do you mean that floor of the tank or the bottom of the turret (not the turret basket).? Am I right in assuming that there was water egress between the mantlet and the armour plate of the turret? I'm curious because on a recent trip to TNA I came across a scientific analysis on how cold tanks get in Winter and what the effects are on the crew (all part of designing effective CWW clothing for the crews). They analysed various parts of the tank and how Cold weather affected the heating in tanks, especially in tank with their engines off! Interesting stuff and it got me thinking about the severe winter of 44/45 and what it was like for the crews and when I realised that there could be water egress between the Mantlet and the turret I wondered if there was any problems with freezing water inside the turrets, and if so did it have any negative impact on their ability to get the tanks in action in a hurry.