Jump to content
Dirk59

FV426 Pics Needed - Help!

Recommended Posts

Hi

Would anyone have any pics, drawings, specs of the British Army FV426, Carrier, Tracked, Launcher: Orange William missile system? I'm doing some illustration work on this vehicle and a thorough search on the WW2 has produced zilch! 

So I'm hoping that someone here might be able to help. 

Thankyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dirk59 said:

Hi

Would anyone have any pics, drawings, specs of the British Army FV426, Carrier, Tracked, Launcher: Orange William missile system? I'm doing some illustration work on this vehicle and a thorough search on the WW2 has produced zilch! 

So I'm hoping that someone here might be able to help. 

Thankyou

Hi Dirk,

Not surprised that you found nothing on WW2 as this was a 1950’s vehicle. Not sure there were many built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clive is your man for anything Orange William, I'm sure he'll be along soon.  Out of interest, what is this for?

Andy

  • Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy, 

I'm an illustrator of military equipment and I've had a request to do one of the FV426. I thought about Clive but I'm not sure how to contact him as I'm new to this site and still feeling my way, lol. 

Rgds

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Richard Farrant said:

Hi Dirk,

Not surprised that you found nothing on WW2 as this was a 1950’s vehicle. Not sure there were many built. 

Hi Richard, 

Thanks for your reply. 

New to the site so I expect there to be some errors in my posting. You're correct about the vehicle being 1950s. Not sure, but don't think the vehicle got past R&D stage, but could be wrong. Could you perhaps suggest a more appropriate forum to post to? 

Best regards

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 30+ years of searching I have never found a drawing, plan, sketch, model or photo of FV426. Others have also tried particularly Chris Gibson with whom I discussed how the vehicle might look knowing what a FV421 looked like & the OW launch requirements. He did a very sympathetic set of drawings of how it was likely to have been, it was for an inclusion in a book, but the publishers dropped the chapter because they wanted to focus more on aircraft engines.

The best collection of OW stuff is at the PRO filed under WO 291/2214 this includes memos from the Army Operational Research Group & other correspondence. They have FVRDE Spec 9243 that covers the FV426, but no drawings.

As you may have noticed my avatar is OW (& not Malkara as commonly supposed)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Clive

Fantastic information, thankyou. I also have to make a concept drawing of the FV426 and I was wondering if I might run it by you for your opinion before I submit it to the client? I certainly would welcome it. 

It would also be great to be able to see Chris Gibson's rendering, although I don't know if this is possible. Are you ever in contact with him, Clive? If so, could you ask him? Don't worry if it's not possible. Nothing beats a try! Lol

In the meantime I'll check the PRO link and hopefully come up with something. 

Cool avatar and cool coincidence too, eh? 

Best regards

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek I am not sure whether I still have the Chris drawings. But I'm afraid I wouldn't pass them on as they are his copyright, besides he may well want to use them if he gets a chance to publish anything on OW.

OW was expected to be fired at an extraordinary rate & seemed not to take account of number of controllers needed who were required to acquire control bring OW towards themselves & then onto a target.

There is a very brief outline of OW here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Clive

Completely understand re: Chris' drawings. The only way to see them is to ask him and then it's up to him. 

But I still do appreciate the help I've been given so far so thank you. 

So, would you be interested to look at my illustration and comment on it? 

Best regards

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2018 at 12:46 PM, fv1609 said:

In 30+ years of searching I have never found a drawing, plan, sketch, model or photo of FV426. Others have also tried particularly Chris Gibson with whom I discussed how the vehicle might look knowing what a FV421 looked like & the OW launch requirements. He did a very sympathetic set of drawings of how it was likely to have been, it was for an inclusion in a book, but the publishers dropped the chapter because they wanted to focus more on aircraft engines.

The best collection of OW stuff is at the PRO filed under WO 291/2214 this includes memos from the Army Operational Research Group & other correspondence. They have FVRDE Spec 9243 that covers the FV426, but no drawings.

As you may have noticed my avatar is OW (& not Malkara as commonly supposed)

Further to conversation yesterday, Clive, here's rough of the proposed drawing of FV426 Orange William Launcher as per spec. 9243. Comments welcome. ( Just a note: ultimately any drawings relating to this topic remain the property of my client and/or myself. Reproduction by permission only, thankyou ).  

1518632186208.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek I can't read labels, but I don't think that is quite right.

The armour was to extend the full width & length of the vehicle. The missiles were to be fitted to launcher rails that would swing out from a pair of sliding doors on each side of the vehicle. These sliding doors were to be waterproof when closed to allow wading.

So we have a missile on each launcher rail & 5 spare missiles. Yet the rate of fire was to be 3 rounds a minute which if greater accuracy was needed could reduce to 2 rounds a minute. Quite an extraordinary rate of fire, particularly as each missile would require a controller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fv1609 said:

Derek I can't read labels, but I don't think that is quite right.

The armour was to extend the full width & length of the vehicle. The missiles were to be fitted to launcher rails that would swing out from a pair of sliding doors on each side of the vehicle. These sliding doors were to be waterproof when closed to allow wading.

So we have a missile on each launcher rail & 5 spare missiles. Yet the rate of fire was to be 3 rounds a minute which if greater accuracy was needed could reduce to 2 rounds a minute. Quite an extraordinary rate of fire, particularly as each missile would require a controller.

Hi Clive, 

Thanks for that. Yes I read the information that you mentioned in the spec, however, my engineering experience came to the fore I thinking "they cannot be serious!" - manually operated sliding doors from which protrude missile launchers just seemed fantastical. So I interpreted the spec like so, to reflect what I hoped would be a contemporary approach to tracked missile launcher design. But I will revisit the spec again and run down a comparison with your comments. I've no doubt you're correct*. The drawing served its purpose in that when you work from a spec without engineering drawings anything's possible but it does provide an opportunity to firm up in one's mind what may be and what may not be correct to discuss and amend accordingly. Apologies for the poor reproduction - the original pic was pin sharp so something must have gotten lost in transfer. 

Rgds

Derek.  

* then it's no wonder the idea was scrapped! Whitehall mandarins must have been watching too much Gerry Anderson! ;-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes these launching cradles must have been an extraordinary design, manually operated & also to be elevated, a lot to do in 20 secs! I do wonder if some of this strange thinking was tied up with the aspirations of Quickfire that later lost out to Swingfire.

Many years ago before I got into ATGWs properly, speaking to someone who worked for MoA described how he loaded Malkaras into a butterfly arm with cradles, whilst one cradle with a missile was above the vehicle. He said you had to avoid being decapitated as this double cradle swung round for a reload. A few years later I realised he would have been in the Malkara test trailer during trials.

These missiles are quite heavy, I remember two of us struggled getting them onto the Hornet I used to have. There is an  archive picture of three servicemen struggle with one, although they didn't use the platforms provided that would permit two people to do it.

So imagine how the two loaders of OW would have coped trying to just load one missile, wind the cradle out & elevate it & stand clear of the blast. Did they have to close the shuttered doors, then wind them open again? All highly impractical.

I saw your posts on ARRSE, did you look at my Shorland missile article as there is a bit of OW coverage there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fv1609 said:

Yes these launching cradles must have been an extraordinary design, manually operated & also to be elevated, a lot to do in 20 secs! I do wonder if some of this strange thinking was tied up with the aspirations of Quickfire that later lost out to Swingfire.

Many years ago before I got into ATGWs properly, speaking to someone who worked for MoA described how he loaded Malkaras into a butterfly arm with cradles, whilst one cradle with a missile was above the vehicle. He said you had to avoid being decapitated as this double cradle swung round for a reload. A few years later I realised he would have been in the Malkara test trailer during trials.

These missiles are quite heavy, I remember two of us struggled getting them onto the Hornet I used to have. There is an  archive picture of three servicemen struggle with one, although they didn't use the platforms provided that would permit two people to do it.

So imagine how the two loaders of OW would have coped trying to just load one missile, wind the cradle out & elevate it & stand clear of the blast. Did they have to close the shuttered doors, then wind them open again? All highly impractical.

I saw your posts on ARRSE, did you look at my Shorland missile article as there is a bit of OW coverage there?

Hi Clive

I wondered about the ability of the loaders to withstand the exhaust plume of a missile launch which would have been more or less within 2 to 3 feet of their position. There's no mention of a cutout in the doors to accommodate the launch system arm upon which the missiles would rest, therefore, there would have to be a gap between the door edge and the outer shell of the vehicle, and therefore,  during a launch, a jet of superheated gasses would inevitably have been forced into the loaders' position with unthinkable results!  I suppose it might have made great toast!! In any case, I hope that you can better appreciate how I arrived at my interpretation.

I did download a copy of your Shorland/Land Rover doc ( looks real good! ) and will get to read it shortly. I'm particularly interested in the Shoreland as I spent a fair portion of my engineering / tech pubs career in Bombardier, Belfast which I'm sure you're aware is the former Shorts. 

In the meantime the information gleaned from our discussion has been immensely helpful and I'm indebted to you and now that I know for certain that the FV426 proposal was pie-in-the-sky I'll redraw it ( I always had an ambition to do something in science fiction anyway!!  ) 

Cheers

Derek

PS Did you know that the Royal Navy took nuclear mines to the Falklands war? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek I think the best you can do is to depict it with all the naiveties of design, rather than help them out with improvements.

There seems to have been minimal consideration as to the human tasks & risks required. At one meeting the matter was raised about the stress involved for the controller in the forward vehicle (Ferret) who was required to launch OW via the dedicated radio link then guide the missile at himself & then onto the target. The concern was dismissed that he would get used to it. How a group of controllers could cope with a rate of fire of 3 missiles a minute seems to have been poorly considered.

But of course FV426 was only one several candidates for launching OW that were under consideration at various times.

Regarding Shorts did you come across Eric Tuckey? He was a great source of info for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dirk59 said:

PS Did you know that the Royal Navy took nuclear mines to the Falklands war? 

If you mean WE177s, that's because they couldn't land them in time and they never entered territorial waters anyway!

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the sketch of the proposed FV426, remember the basic FV420 vehicle that this was to be built on. You can see in the attached photo that the result of the engine and main gearbox being mounted in the middle of the cargo area was that there was an enormous box stretching from the very back of the vehicle to just behind the 'cab'. There was then a short drive shaft to the steering gearbox mounted between the driver and co-driver. There was certainly not room to just move the power plant forward to give a flat load area as you have shown. At the time of this project it was regarded as necessary that combat vehicles of this size be fully amphibious, and this was attempted on other versions of the FV420 series. That would not have been possible without either the launchers being inside the vehicle sides as Clive describes, or a wading screen as used on the FV436 Green Archer radar  vehicle. On the Green Archer the step from the top of the cab to the lower level had to be at about 45 degrees to allow the wading screen to be folded. As the Green Archer was mounted on a 430 series base the engine is in the front left corner of the vehicle with the gearbox mounted beside it on the centre line of the vehicle. There was then just room for a crew position between it and the back of the 'cab', rather like the FV434 armoured repair vehicle.

As far as I know, no FV426 was actually built, but if I were researching this I would talk to Bovington Tank Museum.

Davidmystery2.thumb.JPG.88f34cc39935933ff87d97bc59d1f8a8.JPG

Edited by David Herbert
  • Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, andym said:

If you mean WE177s, that's because they couldn't land them in time and they never entered territorial waters anyway!

Andy

Lol. Correct! Interesting "What If...." 

Edited by Dirk59
Added wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Herbert said:

Regarding the sketch of the proposed FV426, remember the basic FV420 vehicle that this was to be built on. You can see in the attached photo that the result of the engine and main gearbox being mounted in the middle of the cargo area was that there was an enormous box stretching from the very back of the vehicle to just behind the 'cab'. There was then a short drive shaft to the steering gearbox mounted between the driver and co-driver. There was certainly not room to just move the power plant forward to give a flat load area as you have shown. At the time of this project it was regarded as necessary that combat vehicles of this size be fully amphibious, and this was attempted on other versions of the FV420 series. That would not have been possible without either the launchers being inside the vehicle sides as Clive describes, or a wading screen as used on the FV436 Green Archer radar  vehicle. On the Green Archer the step from the top of the cab to the lower level had to be at about 45 degrees to allow the wading screen to be folded. As the Green Archer was mounted on a 430 series base the engine is in the front left corner of the vehicle with the gearbox mounted beside it on the centre line of the vehicle. There was then just room for a crew position between it and the back of the 'cab', rather like the FV434 armoured repair vehicle.

As far as I know, no FV426 was actually built, but if I were researching this I would talk to Bovington Tank Museum.

David 

Yes David, 

I agree with most of what you mentioned. The main difference between the 420 and the 426, and it's probably moot, is that according to the spec, "structure shall be full width for the total length of the vehicle". So it's progressing towards the 432 configuration. I've revised tte drawing and would welcome your input. The drg is at the general concept stage - not everything has been included. If ok, detail will be added. 

I contacted Bovington, however help was limited and further assistance attracted fees, which unfortunately I had to decline. 

Derek

IMG_20180215_184846.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, fv1609 said:

Derek I think the best you can do is to depict it with all the naiveties of design, rather than help them out with improvements.

There seems to have been minimal consideration as to the human tasks & risks required. At one meeting the matter was raised about the stress involved for the controller in the forward vehicle (Ferret) who was required to launch OW via the dedicated radio link then guide the missile at himself & then onto the target. The concern was dismissed that he would get used to it. How a group of controllers could cope with a rate of fire of 3 missiles a minute seems to have been poorly considered.

But of course FV426 was only one several candidates for launching OW that were under consideration at various times.

Regarding Shorts did you come across Eric Tuckey? He was a great source of info for me.

Hi Clive

I think you're absolutely correct. I've revised the drg. It's a general concept. If it goes forward, detail will be added. As usual, your observations are gratefully accepted! As for Eric Tuckey, I never met him. He was probably before my time. What dept. was he in?

Derek 

IMG_20180215_184846.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek yes that's coming on, but I think there should be two sliding doors on each side. That then allows a wider exit hole for the length of the missile, because at present the door can't go too far forward as it would encroach on the driver's door.

A split door that is operated by a rack & pinion would obviously less burdensome to open. Presumably the rear loader would open the rear sliding door & the front loader the front sliding door. Of course there is quite a barrier, in the form of the launcher arms/cradles, between the front & rear loaders, which is why the rear loader has his own rear door.

As I understand it Eric was the Sales Manager during most of the time of the manufacture of Shorlands. The export drive was down to him mainly & he was on a sales mission abroad when the take over happened & sadly the records seemed to have been cleared out & presumably discarded/destroyed. Eric died about 4 years ago, but it is him in many of the sales brochures featuring a man in a DPM jacket firing a gun or missile from a Shorland.

  • Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fv1609 said:

Derek yes that's coming on, but I think there should be two sliding doors on each side. That then allows a wider exit hole for the length of the missile, because at present the door can't go too far forward as it would encroach on the driver's door.

A split door that is operated by a rack & pinion would obviously less burdensome to open. Presumably the rear loader would open the rear sliding door & the front loader the front sliding door. Of course there is quite a barrier, in the form of the launcher arms/cradles, between the front & rear loaders, which is why the rear loader has his own rear door.

As I understand it Eric was the Sales Manager during most of the time of the manufacture of Shorlands. The export drive was down to him mainly & he was on a sales mission abroad when the take over happened & sadly the records seemed to have been cleared out & presumably discarded/destroyed. Eric died about 4 years ago, but it is him in many of the sales brochures featuring a man in a DPM jacket firing a gun or missile from a Shorland.

Clive

I must look out for Eric / shorland via internet, etc. Be interested to see him in that setting. 

It has occurred to me that the best arrangement for the missile doors would be to open /shut vertically rather than laterally. There are three advantages that occur to me:

  1.  There would be even less exertion required to operate the doors.
  2. Doors could be opened by one operator, rather than two. 
  3. The arrangement would provide better protection from missile motor discharge, and/or enemy fire.
  4. An oblong aperture would provide easier ingress/egress of the missile launch system.

There are more advantages but having thought of them I can't remember what they were. Anyways, what do you think? 

Derek

  1.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek I can't envisage that vertically opening doors would have enough room unless they jut out above the vehicle profile & down to the track area. It would be a lot of work for one man to wind up the lower door to close up or to raise the upper door when opening up.

A better division of labour & time, would be the rear loader winding his horizontally mounted door back & forth with the front loader winding his door in a similar manner. The effort for opening & closing doors would be the same & for each operator & presumably faster than just one man doing the work.

This Spec was Jan 1959, what would be interesting is to get hold of MoS Fighting Vehicles Division, Development Liaison Report 38 Sept 1959. I have some pages that cover OW in relation to FV1620 being the launch vehicle (with possibility of Malkara use as well) & LWB Land Rover. Doubt was expressed that Ferret for the control vehicle to  due weight & volume of the control equipment. This is on page 35, I suspect FV426 may have had some coverage on page 34.

It should not be assumed FV426 would have been abandoned by now because alternative launchers were being planned. This is because FV426 was required for a Global War Role, whereas airportable launchers like FV1620 & Land Rovers were needed for limited local warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...