Churchill Gallery

[Bob Grundy]

Steve

As regards the location you are quite right, I have got the names mixed up in my mind.

Stainmore; I have swanned about on there during day and darkness, one time with a dead chicken in my 'large pack'. Its rough ground but certainly no armoured vehicles lying around.

Back to the thread, there was/is a rumour that in the forrest ther was another Churchill, but due to the densness (sic) no-one could find it. It was derilict like this one and the trees had been planted all around it.

Can you throw any light on this other one ?

Bob

[antar]

Steve

As regards the location you are quite right, I have got the names mixed up in my mind.

Stainmore; I have swanned about on there during day and darkness, one time with a dead chicken in my 'large pack'. Its rough ground but certainly no armoured vehicles lying around.

Back to the thread, there was/is a rumour that in the forrest ther was another Churchill, but due to the densness (sic) no-one could find it. It was derilict like this one and the trees had been planted all around it.

Can you throw any light on this other one ?

Bob

 

Just seen Eddy jumping in his van with a large metal detector, wonder where he's off to.....

[steveo578]

Hi Bob

 

The story I think is people mistaking the same tank from different viewpoints that variously 2 Churchills or a Churchill and another tank with a small turret - called a Valentine or 2 Valentines or Covenanters/Crusader or Morris Recce, but despite searches nothing further was apparent.

 

Personally I think the story dates back to what has been published in War records of unserviceable vehicles being placed for grenade practice, but I think they were probably removed shortly after WW2 prior to the planting. I've been to this forest as a boy (relatives in Harrogate) and the Churchill Mk2 was there then, I had a further look around in the early 1990s, but didn't come across anything further.

 

Steve

[steveo578]

Antar

Just seen Eddy jumping in his van with a large metal detector,

 

Got a feeling I might end up searching through pine forests if I'm not careful, the last time (in a plantation in Northumberland) it was so thick I had to wear ski goggles to protect my eyes -I would have taken a panga but I imagine the forestry bods would have objected -certainly can't be seen with one these days:police: - it was so thick I wouldn't have been surprised if a little man in black with a lamp shade hat and an AK hadn't popped out:-D -Neadless to say the "tank" was not found.

 

Steve

[eddy8men]

hi antar

 

the usual suspects have been pm'd by me and will be pumped for info later on (in a non gay way of course) :cool2:

[mcspool]

Wartime colour picture, found at miliblog.co.uk

 

 

[ajmac]

Is that some kind of makers plate at the top of the glacias, or is it a trick of the light? I have that photo in the first ever book I brought about WW2 back in 1991ish.

[Adrian Barrell]

Is that some kind of makers plate at the top of the glacias, or is it a trick of the light? I have that photo in the first ever book I brought about WW2 back in 1991ish.

 

(Pedant mode on) That's the visor plate. The glacis plate is the sloping plate below it.

(Pedant mode off)

 

Back to the question, I always assumed it is more of a preentation plate of some sort but that's just a guess. What's your thoughts as to what it says?

[steveo578]

The Tank in question is shaver T32045 B sqdn 43btn RTR the reason it has the presentation plate Thorncliffe is that it was built by Newton Chambers Sheffield at the Thorncliffe Park Plant it should be the 50th tank built of the Ist batch of 75 -Ist tank T31996.

 

43btn RTR was a training rgt in WW2 and survived into Post war service as a TA Btn in Newcastle using Comets and Cents. Its memorial is situated at St. Thomas' Church -St Marys' Place Ncle -the Drill hall is now a car park:(.

 

Another 43rd Btn RTR Churchill from the same reel of film is Samson T31854 a Birmingham Carriage Co. tank.

 

Alastair will no doubt recognise the rear cover photo of the book he mentioned.

 

 

Steve

[ajmac]

(Pedant mode on) That's the visor plate. The glacis plate is the sloping plate below it.

(Pedant mode off)

 

:blush: Let me know when I can come out of the corner.

 

Thanks for info Steve

[steveo578]

ajmac

:blush: Let me know when I can come out of the corner.

 

Don't worry mate I'll be sitting on the naughty step for sometime too:D

 

Steve

[steveo578]

A picture of Saurian another 43rd Btn RTR Churchill

 

 

 

Another 43rd Btn tank this photo is also originally a colour print and was used as the cover pic of the Airfix Magazine in August 1967 a the begining of the Churchill tank serialisation articles. Note how the Tank number has been deliberately obscured in both photos -I don't have a note of the number on this tank.

 

 

Another view of Thorncliffe/Shaver probably it too was originally from the colour stock

 

 

Steve

Edited November 17, 2010 by steveo578

[steveo578]

A question came up about why some Churchills lack the nuts on the hull side and toe plate.

 

Initially Churchills Mk1,2 had armour retaining bolts which were externally flush with the face of the armoured plate, in later production longer bolts were used in areas where they could be fitted with cone shaped nuts without interfering with other components such as tracks.

 

Churchill Mk1 this photo shows a number of the original unre-enforced bolt ends

 

 

A 43rd Btn RTR tank Sprinter showing the bare hull and original split air intakes.

 

 

A remanufactured Mk2 to Mk4 standard Ko'd out in Russia in Aug. 1943 it is of the 36th Guards breakthough rgt with the famous logo "For the Soviet Ukraine".

 

 

A detail pic of the OTA Mk4 Merlin ex OTA showing later remanufacture improvement of welding a cone of similar dimensions to the conical nut over the original bolt end.

 

 

A detail of above

 

 

A close up of a conical nut and bolt.

 

 

The Feldom wreck which had conical nuts and bolts and retrospective applique armour.

 

 

An Excel spreadsheet of Churchill production showing the original plain hull production anotated as cream column sections and the later conical nuts and bolt hull type as light blue columns and column segments. Some production batches by Birmingham Rail Carriage, Metro Cammel and Leyland (2nd batches) have been split as the T numbers seem to have been issued in two runs- therefore a batch of plain hulls have later numbers than those with conical nuts, may have been due to contracts and components being transfered. The graph is extrapolated from approximately 7% observation of tank numbers. To use the first batch as an example Vauxhall built 450 tank of which about 413 should be plain hulls.

 

Notes

 

The graph only shows approx. number of each type of hull built by the various contractors -it does not take into account dates of manufacture.

 

The graph shows only the five figure tank numbers in the ranges T31*** T32*** T67 *** T68*** T69***. Later manufacture in the 6 figure Tank numbers T17**** T25**** T34**** have not been included as all these tanks have either conical nuts-bolts or as Mk7 and 8 were welded A22F hulls.

 

 

Steve

Edited November 23, 2010 by steveo578
clarifying graphwork

[eddy8men]

thanks steve

 

that has answered my question in your usual thorough style. it's one thing to be told early hulls had cones welded over the bolts but it's hard to really understand it until you can see it infront of you. cheers mate

 

i'll buy you a coffee on sunday

 

eddy

[ajmac]

Interesting. Those cones are used on the Cromwell turrets too, I always wondered what they were for!

[Adrian Barrell]

Interesting. Those cones are used on the Cromwell turrets too, I always wondered what they were for!

 

The Cromwell uses the conical nuts but not the conical bolt end covers.

[antar]

The list of manufacturers is interesting, if we had to do it all again tomorrow who would now be capable of such manufacturing in the UK ?

[Pzkpfw-e]

The list of manufacturers is interesting, if we had to do it all again tomorrow who would now be capable of such manufacturing in the UK ?

 

Well, of those companies listed, Leyland, we all know about! Vauxhall's still going, but making tanks?

Beyer-Peacock shut in 1966

Metro-Cammel now part of Alstom, so still capable?

Broom & Wade - Now Compair, so heavy engineering its ballgame?

Newton Chambers only now remains as Ronseal, 'nuff said! There is (?) a Churchill on display outside their old factory in Sheffield. (Wiki entry says it's been moved)

Gloucester Waggon are now owned by Babcock, so I'd say they've the capabilities

Dennis - well, possibly?

Charles Roberts - now Prorail, so highly likely.

[steveo578]

Pzkpfw-e

Newton Chambers only now remains as Ronseal, 'nuff said! There is (?) a Churchill on display outside their old factory in Sheffield. (Wiki entry says it's been moved)

 

The gateguard went sometime ago the story has been recounted on other threads. It was a Mk7 AVRE FV3903 a Post War mod. -with a piece of tube in place of the 6.5inch BL gun.

 

The multitude of companies used in the building of the Churchill tank was a supreme example of the shadow factory system -somewhat inefficient but almost bomb proof, a necessary and far sighted plan in retrospect as some tank production was eliminated by bombing notably the T17 Tetrarch production at Metro Cammel in April 1941.

 

Could it be done again -really would any want to:-(

 

Steve

[ajmac]

The Cromwell uses the conical nuts but not the conical bolt end covers.

Thanks Adrian, could you post a photo?

[ajmac]

I think what we would find today in all these engineering companies which differs from the WW2 days is the huge usage of 'outsourcing'. 70 years ago these large engineering companies were capable of taking in raw materials and outputting a complete vehicle (within reason). Now most, if not all companies will not have a foundry, a rolling mill etc... They could fabricate a Churchill but cast turrets and engines would come from other companies which I think we would quickly find were the same companies and thus defeating the point of Shadow factories.

Then think of the sundries, i.e. bearings, seals, clips, cable, etc.. many of those things are imported today. Many of the standard size SKF bearings I have been looking through for the Loyd have 'made in India'. on the race.

 

I work in the old Ruston & Hornsby factory in Lincoln, the guys who were here in the 70's still point out where the rail lines used to come into the site, there was the Foundry, that building housed the drop forge, over there the heat treatment furnaces, plating baths. It's a shadow of that today, in fact the project I'm working on at the moment will lead to more out sourcing of a key capability because it costs 1/3rd the price the accountants believe it costs the guys in the factory to do it!

Edited November 25, 2010 by ajmac

[Adrian Barrell]

Thanks Adrian, could you post a photo?

 

Sure can, though they look exactly like the one in pic 6 of Steves post 163!

[steveo578]

ajmac

I think what we would find today in all these engineering companies which differs from the WW2 days is the huge usage of 'outsourcing'. 70 years ago these large engineering companies were capable of taking in raw materials and outputting a complete vehicle (within reason). Now most, if not all companies will not have a foundry, a rolling mill etc... They could fabricate a Churchill but cast turrets and engines would come from other companies which I think we would quickly find were the same companies and thus defeating the point of Shadow factories.

 

 

 

While you have a point some factories in the Churchil programme could build in theory from scratch, most Churchills were built by bringing together parts from various manufacturers- there is even unco-oburated reports that some Churchill Nk1-2 turret castings may have been sourced from the USA -probably just tentative contract enquiries.

 

The shadow factory system worked because sub contractors were often in other regions for example welded A22F hulls were supplied to Vauxhall and eventually Broom and Wade from factories as far scattered as Darlington -and be aware there were no Churchill manufactures in the North East of England. Whether Goucester Carriage manufactured entirely its own hulls I don't know but in the end Goucester Carriage became a component supplier rather than a tank assembly enterprise.

 

Similarly other strategic components were sufficiently dispersed to prevent manufacturing bottle necks in the event of bombing- consider armour plate manufacture -with plants widely dispersed in the Black country Lincolnshire Yorkshire, North East England, North West England and South West Scotland, a Luftwaffe inspired disruption would have had to involve an air fleet a factor of 10 at least larger than the Luftwaffe was at its height.

 

Steve

[mcspool]

Churchill T320952

 

 

[steveo578]

mcspool

Churchill T320952

 

I think it is T32092 (all Mk1-2 Churchill are five number serials) a Harland Wolfe built Churchill -the A/T ice berge is well hidden but no doubt disaster will soon strike:D.

 

Here is another photo from the same series or film stock.

 

Steve

Edited November 26, 2010 by steveo578