For discussion

[Simon Daymond]

I took the militant to Keighley yesterday as part of a display organised by the town council for a veterans display.

 

As it was hot, we retired to the local pub, where I had the real privelage of talking to a couple of veterans, both well into their 80's.

 

one used to serve on Dukws amongst other things, the other was a gunner and wireless operator in Chuchill tanks.

 

As usual, they were slow to speak about what they'd done, no doubt not aware that everything they said was fascinating.

 

To the point,

 

they raised a couple of interesting ideas, which I know we all could pass a bit of time chewing the fat over

 

First item : jerry cans, the British used to use 2 gallon tins, but after being used a couple of times they used to leak badly, so after the desert campaign, they started to use discarded German cans, and the British then had replicas made in Egypt?

 

Second item: the reason our tanks were so small compared to those of the Germans, was due to the railways? The fact that our tracks were so near ( up and down lines) meant that there was a smaller width available when transporting the tanks by rail, something that the Germans didn't suffer with as there lines were further apart?

 

Final point: Tank crews, I didn't realise that the crew on a British tank had to operate it and carry out repairs & servicing, whereas our American counterparts had a crew to 'fight' in with tank, and completely seperate crew to repair and maintain it. The guy gave an example where once he was in a Sherman with an American driver, he asked the driver about certain parts and controls of the tank, and the reply was ' I don't know - I only drive' !

 

Anyway just a bit of something to give you something to post about, not saying any of the above is true, or not, but interesting to know a little more about it.

[Richard Farrant]

First item : jerry cans, the British used to use 2 gallon tins, but after being used a couple of times they used to leak badly, so after the desert campaign, they started to use discarded German cans, and the British then had replicas made in Egypt?

 

Second item: the reason our tanks were so small compared to those of the Germans, was due to the railways? The fact that our tracks were so near ( up and down lines) meant that there was a smaller width available when transporting the tanks by rail, something that the Germans didn't suffer with as there lines were further apart?

 

 

 

 

Hi Simon,

 

To kick this off, first item, cans. Not the two gallon can, which were quite hardy, I regularly use one made in 1936, never leaked. It is the 4 gallon "flimsy", that I think they were refering to, more petrol was lost from these leaking cans than was used.........maybe an exageration, but from what I understand a large percentage was wasted.

 

Second item, true, everything had to suit the British loading guage, which took into account bridges and tunnels, not just track spacing.

[morris c8 fat]

Just to prove the point look at the man from the ministry with his ruler

[alan turner (RIP)]

It didn't get any better post war either attached views show centurions being gauged at Longmoor Military railway.

 

This may be the last posting from this source as the society has been given 3 days to vacate it's storage site and the contents are being dispersed mainly to Greenwich Heritage centre and possibly the RA Museum. Luckily the rubbish remains rubbish, but its the remainingdamned good content that has to be kept, so i shall fight on

[tim gray]

Re the flimsey can i believe they were working on at least a 30% loss when transporting fuel in North africa ( not sure in the other theaters) Not only due to the rough terrain but also the heating effect on the cans themselves.

 

IIRC correctly thier was a challenge in the courts a few years ago from the company that pioneered the design and production of the Jerrycan. I believe the claim was based on copyright and was against just about every nation that had ever made em scince the war. Didnt hear much after the original article so i presume it was chucked out of the international courts.

 

Tim

[morris c8 fat]

Re Jerry cans I think it was a German company that put the clame in only to find the Italians had been making them for a year ot two before (this may be hear say but isnt every urban myth)

[Simon Daymond]

re fuel cans, the guy said that the original ones, must be the 4 gallon ones, leaked at the tops and bottom where the seams were. Interestingly he seemed to think that German (Jerry cans) were much thicker than our attempts at them. When fueling his chuchill he said it was a continuous flow: full cans coming in from one side, empty ones going out the other.

 

sidetracking slightly, he made us all laugh with his tales of trying to send morse whilst on the move, the instrument being strapped to his leg, and trying to do this whilst going over bumps etc, he said he was a far better gunner than wireless operator

Edited June 27, 2010 by Simon Daymond

[ferretfixer]

Very nice pics of the Cents! Wasn't it a magnificent looking MBT?

I notice the Armoured side skirts have been removed also, no doubt to reduce the width even more? I would assume that these would have been stowed on the flat cars UNDER the Tank during rail transit.

I have been stationed at Bordon just up the road from Longmoor many times during my Service Time. (Every REME bod who served had!) But for some reason, I never got up to the Museum to see all the Military Railway Articles they had display there. Now it's too late! :embarrassed:

Mike.

[andrewroberts.1953]

Part of the problem with rail transport is tunnel size, cuttings curve, and station platform gaps. This is why some big items of industial kit in 50's were moved by road and not rail.

US softskin logistics drivers, are not trained to repair anything. The same drivers, also don't get much infantry training. I was rold by an American major that his men were drivers, and not here to fight!

[antarmike]

I remember hearing somewhere Russian T34 Tank drivers and crew members , who said they built their own tank. The tank crew actually assembled their own T34 at the factory so that they would know how it went together, and what it all did, and once they had built their tank, they took it away and fought with it. Surely this is the ultimate position in the Tank crew understanding their vehicle, and being able to maintain and repair it.

[Marmite!!]

Just to prove the point look at the man from the ministry with his ruler

You sure that's not Antarmike :whistle:

[AlienFTM]

I remember hearing somewhere Russian T34 Tank drivers and crew members , who said they built their own tank. The tank crew actually assembled their own T34 at the factory so that they would know how it went together, and what it all did, and once they had built their tank, they took it away and fought with it. Surely this is the ultimate position in the Tank crew understanding their vehicle, and being able to maintain and repair it.

 

Probably true at Stalingrad where the factory was in the war zone and they were driven out straight into battle by the builders, rather than being built by the crews.

[utt61]

It didn't get any better post war either attached views show centurions being gauged at Longmoor Military railway.

 

This may be the last posting from this source as the society has been given 3 days to vacate it's storage site and the contents are being dispersed mainly to Greenwich Heritage centre and possibly the RA Museum. Luckily the rubbish remains rubbish, but its the remainingdamned good content that has to be kept, so i shall fight on

 

Alan,

 

I don't suppose you have any more photos of the Ransomes & Rapier crane (seen in the background in many of these pictures)? If you do, I would love to see them!

 

Interesting that the wagons being loaded in this sequence appear to be metre-gauge, and definitely not for UK use. Do you have any background info on what is actually going on and why?

 

Thanks for posting such fascinating pictures, and good luck with your task to save such valuable information for the future.

 

Roger

[alan turner (RIP)]

Thanks for the comments Roger, as I understand things there is to be a New funded ROF Museum under construction down at Glascoed wales and as Woolwich was ROF1(W) a lot of the negatives are heading that way.

 

The Arsenal photographers did keep shoot cards or index books but we have never been able to find any references to to the bulk of shots, just one book from 1952 which only covered about 200 entries which we could tie up.

 

There are other shots of crane mentioned under trains at war thread from earlier in the year.

[HubbyHumber]

Really good photographs, particularly for someone who likes both military vehicles and railways, like I do. As I'm new too the forum, as well as the thread mentioned are there any other threads that someone can point me to with railways, and are there other forum members with interests in both camps - particularly railways involving military vehicles?

 

:-)

 

Adrian

[chevpol]

Really good photographs, particularly for someone who likes both military vehicles and railways, like I do. As I'm new too the forum, as well as the thread mentioned are there any other threads that someone can point me to with railways, and are there other forum members with interests in both camps - particularly railways involving military vehicles?

 

:-)

 

Adrian

Hi Adrian,

 

if you go onto my fotopic site,(link on my signature) click on other collections, and scroll down, you should be able to see my small section on military railways

 

Enjoy

 

Mark

[HubbyHumber]

Mark,

 

Thanks for the link - good to see some military / railway photos, and also was definitely interested in some of the others of military vehicles and rallies. I'll have to go back to your site and spend a bit more time looking.

 

On day when I've got more practice under my belt I'll try and post one or two of my railway / military pics, to see how much interest there may be.

 

Regards

 

Adrian

[steveo578]

Antarmike

I remember hearing somewhere Russian T34 Tank drivers and crew members , who said they built their own tank.

The Red Army trawled workers from factories, this included women workers, therefore many of these workers had acquired skills which would be helpful to the battalion -probably givng them a better chance of survival. Many repair zavod expected surviving crews to carry out repairs on their tanks if possible and as Alien FTM mentioned at Stalingrad some tanks were used by workers straight off the production line. The written and photographic evidence shows virtually any operative T34 and tractors at STZ were taken out Stalingrad almost as soon as the Germans turned up, one photo shows T34s and STZ tractors awaiting shipment with extemporised A/T defence gates in the foreground. However a few were finished by workers after evacuation of the factory to Tankograd in the Urals, (most of the tooling had been removed too) and pressed service -and no doubt were destroyed in short order. There is movie footage of a knocked out T34 which is obviously the source of the story that T34s were sent into battle unpainted - it is bright steel colour, but it is most likely this occurance was a one off.

 

The 4gal petrol can used in the desert was only meant for single usage and it is possible that multiple usage was the real cause of their failure, being returned empty meant it was easily damaged in transport.

 

I'm not 100% convinced with regard to the US Army having combat and maintenance crews in WW2 -sounds a bit of a Veterns story. Mos 19 or whatever the Mos number was in WW2 requires crews to be competant in maintenance and repair capablities up to the level of artificers, similar to their British opposite numbers. It was proposed at various times during WW2 and often post war (especially when nuclear powered tanks were proposed:shocked:) to have dual crews but shortages of trained crews in WW2 and costs post war certainly prevented that, in fact at various times in ETO infantry were transfered to US armour regiments and this may account for some stories of relativley poorly skilled crews. Many were returned to the infantry when there was a shortage of riflemen after the Hurtengen forest operations, there was even a pay bounty to do so.

[Shamouti Ben Yafo]

The size difference in tanks - yes, this was due to the Loading Gauge on the railways. Each company had its own; the Great Central, for example, was to Continental standards. The Gauge was calculated from actual rail gauge (standard from the late 19th Century 4' 8.5"), platform dimensions (even if a train isn't going to stop, it may pass them) and, yes, tunnels - also cuttings. This limited the turret ring diameter, the critical measurement for gun size. But imagine what might have been if Brunel had won over Stephenson and the standard rail gauge was 7' 0.25" - maybe the Churchill Mk III or IV would have been a widened model with a turret mounted 90mm gun... Or an enlarged Valentine with a 17 pdr.

[steveo578]

Shamouti Ben Yafo

what might have been if Brunel had won over Stephenson and the standard rail gauge was 7' 0.25" - maybe the Churchill Mk III or IV would have been a widened model with a turret mounted 90mm gun... Or an enlarged Valentine with a 17 pdr.

 

Interesting point but overly simplistic- poor Stephenson always gets the blame (or at least a mention) for the poor British tank design. the reality is that British tanks were in effect little square boxes in cross section -had they been designed with hulls of T shape cross section, like the Sherman or Tiger 1, the turret ring could have been much bigger, in the case of the Churchill extending the hull out over the tracks was impossible because of the enveloping track design, -but it would have been possible to raise the turret in a similar method to that done with the A30 Challenger- esp. as the Churchill had problems with depression at certain points of azimuth.

 

Consider the KV which was very similar to the Churchill was taken in hand in 1943 by the Dukhov bureau, a wide turret ring fitted to support what was in effect an IS1 turret by the expedient of fitting segmental bulges over the tracks, -something the British didn't do until Fv221 and FV214 Conqueror appeared in 1946-50. The British cannot even use the excuse that they were unware, as A20 built by Harland and Wolfe (-Titanic great omen:wow:) was built with an extremely narrow hull and to mount the Matilda turret in its final configuation it had- segmental bulges.

 

Ah the what ifs of tank design -makes you proud:cool2:

 

Steve

[ruxy]

Brunel was better at launching ships he built for slipping ,,, ...

what if

 

What you got was Stephenson 4'-8.1/2" and the good old Warflat

 

http://www.movcon.org.uk/History/Documents/DID/D-MCHS%200140.htm

[N.O.S.]

Why does the size of turret ring restrict gun size? Surely just by simply installing a heavier duty slewing ring of similar size the greater forces associated with a bigger gun could be accommodated?

 

A tank is only an excavator with a gun for a bucket after all :-D

 

I've probably missed a fundamental principle of tank design here

[AlienFTM]

Why does the size of turret ring restrict gun size? Surely just by simply installing a heavier duty slewing ring of similar size the greater forces associated with a bigger gun could be accommodated?

 

A tank is only an excavator with a gun for a bucket after all :-D

 

I've probably missed a fundamental principle of tank design here

 

A bigger gun requires a longer round to propel the round downrange. The longer the breech (and the room required for the breech to run out under recoil), the wider the turret ring needs to be if the gun is to be allowed to elevate more than a couple of degrees, the breech to depress below the turret ring and achieve the increased range of the bigger gun.

[N.O.S.]

I understand better now, thanks Alien. You obviously know your rounds from your bucket teeth, and your barrel from your dipper arm!

[steveo578]

NOS

Why does the size turret ring restrict gun size?

 

It's complex- I'll try to do it without drawings-the size of the ring has an effect with regard to its strength only because wider means more - larger ball bearing or rollers which absorb the recoil forces without deforming permanently. Added to this larger gun = heavier turret =more weight to be distributed =more shock to be transfered though the ring into the hull.

 

To avoid hitting the rear of the tank the gun in a tank turret needs to be restrained in a shorter recoil stroke than a comparable field gun or A/T gun, a rare example of the use of a conventional A/T gun is the Marmon Herrington Mk4 which being a very light vehicle could not readily absorb the forces of a short stroke tank gun so a standard A/T gun was fitted-(the turret was still capable of accomodating the gun stroke)- the turret has substanical bars (gun guard) to prevent the crew getting into the path of the recoiling gun these also strengthen the turret. (It took a while to get it right and many MH 4 were fitted with heavy machine guns these retained for Home service were later re-armed with 20mm HS 404 cannons.) Anyway the short stroke prevents the gun hitting the turret ring or back of the turret as an alternative the height of the trunnions can be abnormally high, as in the case of the KV2 (very large low velocity howitzer gun with long stroke), A30 Challenger (really bad turret design) and the Charioteer, and to allow the loading of the long/large high velicity rounds at high angles of elevation without jamming against the turret ring. So again compromise tall turret = more weight with inherant problems with traverse -a real problem in the KV2 which could not traverse if not virtually level.

 

So the calculation for a turret ring is distance from the breach rear face + a loading round. The throw of the gun is rarely a problem most are restrained in 350-400mm, but the strength is a major factor. An example in WW2 was the possiblity of fitting the Vickers 75HV -77mm gun into existing turrets -in theory the worst case senario (Churchill turret) is do-able but in WW2 it couldn't be done-hindsight is a wonderful thing and the reason why it could not/wasn't done is not apparent in surviving -available documents which tend to be self serving anyway.

 

the alternative is restriction of loading to horizontal or near horizontal elevation with an mechanism to return the gun to the desired elevation, as in the post war T62 tank -this reduces the perceived rate of fire. The other way round the turret ring conundrum is the oscillating turret first seen in the AMX13 which takes recoil/loading outside the ring -again by making the trunnion height higher but avoiding the need for a higher turret roof -as the gun is fixed in the upper section of the turret- so in effect a variation of the excavator. The oscillating turret was not really a widely considered concept in WW2 -one french prototype armoured car excepted- although the 40mm Bofors hazemeyer mount would have been a good starting point for a British wartime development- but again hind sight.

 

Hope that explains it fully

 

Steve

Edited October 29, 2010 by steveo578
grammar

[N.O.S.]

Taken on board, Steve. I guess nobody could develop a side - loading breech due to the forces generated within the barrel, but it would have made the gun so much more compact.