eddy8men Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 i'm glad they left the battle damage on jackal as it's all too easy to look at a tank and think about it just as an impressive war machine and focus on whatever armour, armament and other technical attributes it possesses and possibly not so much about the crews that fought to the death in them. i know i'm sometimes guilty of that. eddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 (edited) Churchills were always vulnerable to mines especially in the battles around the German border where trip mines attached to UXBs became a favoured defense measure (so again nothing changes in warfare). Although the floor was fairly high it was not srong or even well constucted to take a blast. The sponsons were vulnerable to explosions which caused blast and suspension to burst through the sponson floor plate into ammunition stowage and fuel tanks, apart from heavy damage to the floor if I remember correctly Jackel has a pierced left sponson behind the pannier door -beneath an ammunition rack. A major injury downside of the Churchill was the so called Mk4 hand- amputations of digits -even hands caused by heavy hatches closing unsxpetedly- however the same thing can still happen. The most unexpected consequence of service in Churchills is deteriation of hearing caused by the lack of noise insulation. As I mentioned previously the Valentine was also fited with a turbine -possibly if fitted with 2 a valentine might have got airborne:-D Another pressure mine clearer using aircraft assist rockets Steve Edited October 17, 2010 by steveo578 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Snapped these at Bovy yesterday!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcspool Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) Yes, I saw Jackal before it was moved inside and have seen the mine damage. Repaint has left all the battle damage untouched. Very sobering to look underneath and see where the floor was blasted up into the driver's area....and knowing what happened to the crew. i'm glad they left the battle damage on jackal as it's all too easy to look at a tank and think about it just as an impressive war machine and focus on whatever armour, armament and other technical attributes it possesses and possibly not so much about the crews that fought to the death in them. i know i'm sometimes guilty of that. Indeed. I recall first climbing on and in Jackal when I was 15 or so years old. Very sobering when you see the floor blasted out and trying to envisage what happened to the crew. Since the guys who were there are quickly passing away now, I think it is important - no, vital - we record as much information as possible about relics like Jackal. It puts them into a very powerful context, more so than an as-new restored and running Churchill. Bob Dare has passed away, reportedly he was the last veteran with a personal link to any of the artefacts on display at the Overloon museum. [Rant] To me, a relic like Jackal is much more important than any work of art. Strangely, our law does nothing to effectively protect and preserve these important pieces of international heritage. These relics are of vital importance to link generations and people across the globe, much more than, lets say, Van Gogh's Sunflowers. I was enraged when I heard the Sherman "Cookie", another historical artifact, was sold to Italy. Criminal! [/Rant] Hanno Edited October 18, 2010 by mcspool spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcspool Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Good point Hanno - I will get on it on Monday morning as author and tank vet Ken Tout OBE will be joining us at the new Pathfinder online :-) Excellent! If you need some more pictures of the event in 2009 let me know. Hanno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Excellent! If you need some more pictures of the event in 2009 let me know. Hanno Just off topic - but Hanno Albert Figg will also be writing for Pathfinder Online. Thank you for the heads up! - just working on Professor Richard Holmes now - caught up with him yesterday :whistle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmac Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Post 121 has some good images of two of the different track types used on Churchills, I presume the best type was that fitted on the Mk7 and shown well in the third photo. Would this have been retrofited on earlier marks during rebuild or like the original AVRE shown, would they have retained the older weaker tracks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 i'm sure steve will let us know but i thought the earlier heavy track was the strongest especially on stoney ground, i believe the manganese tracks were found to be not up to the job when the going got tough. one strange thing about the track was the absence of a way to split it, as the track was one continuous loop with all the track pins fasten in situ with a stainless steel tab welded over the end of the pin so the only way to break the track would be to chisel off the welded tab, i can't understand why they never put removeable pins in every few links or so but that's the churchill for you, nobody could say it was a boring tank to study. bizzare, weird, eccentric, over complicated and over engineered but definately not boring :nut: eddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) ajmac Would this have been retrofited on earlier marks during rebuild or like the original AVRE shown, would they have retained the older weaker tracks? There were 3 types of tracks on Churchills if you ignore the original built up type, these are heavy cast steel (shown in the first photo in post 121) light cast steel and a almost identical Managnese Steel track (probably that shown in the second photo- its difficult to tell there is a small internal web on light steel track) all were more or less interchangable- although the light steel track seems to have rapidly required a modification of the idler by fitting a slightly thicker rubber tyre than that required for the other 2 types, this probably means the manganese track was designed to replace the light steel track - because it was stretching too much -hence the interim fix of a thicker tyre to stop it slapping on the idler teeth. By 1944 the manganese and heavy steel were most common and were readily interchangerable -the heavy steel was prefered for low speed cross country in heavy going -mud -sand etc the manganese light track was prefered for mixed road/cross country running. As an example of changing of tracks before a mission some of the Canadian Mk3s prior to Dieppe had light track and were retracked with the heavy cast track. The Post war Churchill Flail always ran on heavy steel track -as it function would require slow heavy going. Hi eddy you posted while I was composing a reply. There was an emergency "service pin" for relinking track in emergency but the accepted method as soon as a welder was available was to weld a tab retained pin, but then again consider other methods that were common at the time- one system for covenanter relied on braising -which must have lasted a few hundred yards, one of the most efficient was the soviet method on T34s etc of an open pin being knocked in by a hammer plate just in front of the sprocket. Churchill track with pin and weld in wedges the pin on the left is the service pin for use to repair a broken track. Steve Edited October 19, 2010 by steveo578 addition italics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) thanks for the comprehensive reply steve, modern track pins often have a threaded end with washer and nut to retain the pin. the bren gun carrier has something similar but with a washer and split pin which has stood the test of time so why they would not choose to use something similar for all track types of that period baffles me but that's just how they used to do things in those days (the hard way) eddy Edited October 20, 2010 by eddy8men Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Hi eddy If I remember correctly the Cromwell have a hammered -rivet like head over a washer anvil, so to break the track it would be necessary to chisel off the head and discard the pin, so lots of variations. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Hi eddy If I remember correctly the Cromwell have a hammered -rivet like head over a washer anvil, so to break the track it would be necessary to chisel off the head and discard the pin, so lots of variations. Steve Only the original, early style. Later pins used round section circlips in grooves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 bug**r wrong again:nut: -the good thing about track pins being loose -its not necessary to modify the track to make a new style, -did the circlip apply to both track widths? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 bug**r wrong again:nut: -the good thing about track pins being loose -its not necessary to modify the track to make a new style, -did the circlip apply to both track widths? Yes, though the pins are different diameters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmac Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Towards the end of the meeting: Design Engineer: Yes, though the pins are different diameters. Service Engineer: Sorry? Design Engineer: ....different diameters.... Service Engineer: For gods sake when will you guys learn! (pulls face, pushed chair away from table) Large British Engineering Company 1940s (and still going on in 2010!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Yes quite and that's why every assembly point on British assembly lines had a good supply of hand tools esp. hammers cold chisels and files:D Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Hardly fair..... The later track was designed to be stronger and better suited to the job. It is wider with more hinge sections and uses a slightly larger pin diameter. It also uses a shorter pitch. There was no point in making any of it interchangeable with the earlier track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Alastairs little joke:D if I remember correctly the sprockets are incompatalbe between the narrow and wide track types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 A change of pitch will do that! In fact, the later sprocket rings are the same as Comet as it is the same pitch track, though narrower. Anyway, back to Churchill...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmac Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 So, when the Mk7 came out with its redesigned hull and turret did the lightweight track (as shown in the Mk7 photos earlier in the thread) come along with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 I've never found an exact date for its introduction, it is tempting to say that it came out around the time that the Mk5, Mk6, Mk7 the late Mk4 and Mk3 of the T17**** batches were comming off line -so second half of 1943 but without a document its impossible to say- its difficult to see whether the tank lacks the small support flange that supports the out edge of the road bar in photos and even then many photos lack a date -and it doesn't proove that it wasn't used earilier on earlier marks being refurbished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Grundy Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 This is the Churchill Mk2 photographed in 1982 or 83. The location is Stainmoor, on Forrestry Commision land. This tank was recovered to Beveley and is now at The Tank Museum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrettkitt Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 Bet that was fun getting it out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) Bob GrundyThis is the Churchill Mk2 photographed in 1982 or 83. The location is Stainmoor, on Forrestry Commision land. nice picture Bob- the location is Stainburn Moor and is about 3mile west of Harrogate. It was used by 9th Bt RTR for training along with nearbye Lindley and Denton Moor. Stainmore is just east of Warcop Training Area and was probably part of that training area during WW2 but AFAIK (I've had a wander around there) there aren't any abandoned tanks there. Steve Edited November 8, 2010 by steveo578 capitals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmac Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Bob, You should write a book about your exploits with the Tracked Armour Group, you would have one sale at the very least Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.