steveo578

Ah you live and learn :-) Thanks for that info I thought it was the result of a weapons test as there was splash damage but I suppose a bad job with a plasma cutter would do the same Steve

Adrian Thanks for that clarification, logical I suppose as I assume the Cromwell type was stronger (hopefully) fitting to Bulldozer tanks would be possibly a good idea to relieve stress-weaknesses. Another thought I've had -the A27 turret had a beautifully machined barrel extraction port in the rear of the turret -was it enlarged for 95mm tanks? -which seems to be the case in the Churchill which had a very crude bolt on lump.

Remember this would not happen if you use calgon in your machine:D Steve

The other consistant difference to ID the difference between a Centaur and Cromwell is the method of idler adjustment and therefore the stowage of the tool necessary. A Centaur has a small cover each side just inboard of the glacis tow point, beneath this is the worm thread to adjust the idler. A Cromwell with otherwise similar hull hatches has an external adjustment cam on the hull side which is adjusted by a specific large bar shaped tool about 160cm long which is always stowed on the offside plate above the air intake. As the worm gear is not fitted the 2 covers on the glacis characteristic of the Centaur are absent in the Cromwell. Steve

Adrian Thanks for that Steve

yes the considered alternative was to pour it into my car fuel tank-the only vehicle that ran on petrol and I really did not fancy taking a risk with 3 year old (at least) petrol. Some odds and ends. what may be the pannier door from a Churchill Mk7-8 I can't think of anything else appropriate -doesn't look right for an early Cent. The 25pounder base a Dykemans Edge CRVT hull detail showing damage near final drive mounting. 3 photos of various munitions during a tidy up on the Ridlees Road- about 1/2km away there were a pair of probably live 125kg bombs within 2metres of each other, close enough to take out the Ridlees Road. Steve

Hi Neil The correct name was 15cm Hochdruckpumpe (Adolf always liked messing with the names of weapons) it was a multi-chamber fixed elevation "super-gun" not dissimilar in concept to Saddams project. The Pas De Calais HDP had about 50 barrels on site hence the predicted high rate of fire. it took 50 ton of demolition charges for the allies to destroy the site. I've mentioned it use in the Battle of The Bulge elsewhere on the forum. Steve

Hi Adrian The Cromwell turret shown has a squarish mantlet aperature with a radiused corner above the sights -verry similar to the 95mm Mk6 turrets was this an attempt to have a universal turret for 75-95mm (as did the Churchill Mk5 and 6 and later Mk4 T17**** serial). Also I was looking at a pic of a Knocked out Mk6 in the Villers Bocage through the Lens book in that the Besa looks asymetrical to the main barrel (could be damage or the angle of the shot) -were the guns fixed at the same elevation or was the Cromwell 6 (95mm) similar to the Mk8 Churchill and possibly the A10 CS fitted with an excentric mount. Steve

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

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

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

Couple of Centurion ARV Mk2. 02ZR36 stood for five years on the road at the edge of Bushmans Crag - well away from targeting (though it didn't stop at least one gunner from having a pop at it- the shell failed to go off and the rabbits found it a good starting point for a tunnel). The motor and fuel tank were removed and it luck ran out in 2001 when it was finally re-alocated to another range. 89BA46 was positioned just north of the Small burn between ATGW2 and 3. Steve

moi- play officer for the day:confused: not very likely - anyway I think my legs are way too short to kick the driver in a Churchill from the Commanders seat -gunner maybe :nut: Steve

Done that with the OTA Grizzlies -without the high viz vest:shocked: and in a Northumberland rain storm that turned the Redesdale camp round-about into a swiming pool:nut:. Steve

they are! -without a doubt, -in the good ol' days the station sgt. was empathatic that no-one should prick their balloons:cool2:

:idea: Does this mean we can re-wire it with 6242Y twin and earth?:rotfl::rotfl: Forget I called shotgun when I showed eddy the Feldom churchills (or what little was left of them) I just never expected him to get even this far this fast -even the U/C I reckoned would be a 3 years build. Anyway I want a turret seat- you can't see anything from the shotgun seat in a Churchill :-D. Steve

Yes Eddy the target arangments are strange -it has been said the L/70 with the barrel extension was an attempt at a faux Soviet 57mm S60 gun (personaly I think it is a left flank survey target for aircaft on the battle run for the "airfield site"). The failure to set up the Chieftain turrets as realistic battle target shows a halfhearted attitude to training -not helped by painting markers to allow the target to be picked up. Anyway more Pigs Heely Dod BSA Good side of the Hopehead farm Prac A/T target Rear view of the other Heely Dod Pig shown in previous post #83 Steve

If only it was that simple- in my locality as part of a local police-L/A -public partnership we have attempted to get waste transfer permits pulled from these miscreants with no effect -evidently the authorities (environment agency) are willing not to issue a licence to an iffy person -but are reluctant to withdraw it from a person convicted of handling stolen property -for fear of an appeal for loss of the right to persue an income:(. I have even provided photos of scrap thieves standing on the roofs of moving vehicles to see into properties (-an offence under road traffic act:nut:) -I've even managed to photograph one climbing into property- (burgulary:shocked:) and cutting down abandoned fridges -releasing toxic materials (enviroment act). I've even suggested we inform welfare to see if these people are working whilst claiming - on that one I was warned that should I inform anyone outside the partnership of the names of "persons of interest" I would be in breach of my oath:(- so really it comes down to the honest majority, will always be victim of the criminal minority. Steve

Could you expain the first pic -it seems to be set up for an long term test? Why?

There seems to be something wrong with the pics in this post. Apart from that when the Panther that was enventually bought by Herr Flick was found in 1977 it wasn't in bad condition- it had been used a MVEE FVRDE and had never been a range target or subjected to explosive tests.

"Yes, I know it's not fast enough for biker gang pursuit -that's why we've kept the Bren"

The reason I thought an extra 100hp or so might have been useful was to allow future improvements rather than extra speed. Steve

You might have to claim political asylum after that one:D as a short term solution to get it going it has merit and as long as the final drives are not irrevocably altered I can't see any harm. it will give time to work out a better system -possibly a more conventional Churchill transmission and perhaps a modern motor, which will be very difficult to source -most of the gate guards were stripped out years ago- even then finding even a reasonable transmission may(will) require a complete long term rebuild including rehardening-reflashing the gears.

Sodium filled exhaust valves too -it is alot more of a design than many writers have given it- the story of the Churchill motor was 2 x 6cylinder Bedford motors cobbled together may never go away. It's a pity they couldn't get 450 -500 BHP out of it and that would have given the Churchill a chance.

But a really cleaver design in many ways -if the British authorities had been sensible a Loyd built in armoured plate could have been a cheaper more suited to mass production design, replacing the U/C Windsor T16. In some ways a loyd with its plates extended upward mirrors the 1950-1960s battle taxis like 432 M113 M59 etc Steve