steveo578

It would be nice if there was some form of concerted programme for the preservation of this stuff, some time ago a Churchill 3in gun carrier (visible in one photo) was rescued in Kent but almost 10 years on it is still in the same condition as it was when it was tipped off the transporter -it's not really on display to the public many of it brothers have disappeared elsewhere and very little effort seems to be expended on the holes in the wartime list -need I mention Cavalier, Centaur, Challenger and no doubt that Sherman hulk represents the thousands of Shermans in British service, OK I know they have a MkV 17pdr but a standard MkIII or V would be nice considering the number that were in service, or do they suffer from a niave delusion that one day a private owner might donate a Sherman to the museum, without making an effort. Meanwhile summer 2010 Tracklink (page 10) manages to report the museums own exhibit Sherman IIIAY (M4A2 76 HVSS) as a 17pdr armed Sherman Firefly:shocked: I think I'll go and have a lie down or I might cause my blood pressure to go off scale:( Steve

Couldn't agree more -anyone heard whether her "boyfriend" will also face a charge? In my local area the authorities have had to put a warden on the city memorial at weekends to stop disrespect - one of the guys told me it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

Or possibly an unfortunate woods man or trapper in the wrong place at the wrong time:-(.

Swiss GMC 353 sometimes have a notek style blackout light on the grille side under the front mudguard rather than a US style blackout in the normal position to the outside of the drivers side headlamp. I'm fairly sure Swiss trucks of all types had a notek style rear blackout distance lamp too. However headlamps on all GMC 353 moved over time in keeping with changes in local vehicle construction and use regs. For example final releases from France (civil defence etc) had headlights repositioned under the mudguards. As to German instructions on dash boards this would also be the case with Austrian 353s and I would have thought Swiss vehicles may also have french instructions.

Montie the photos you posted on the other thread were of T16 carrier about 15000 built in USA from 1943-45 -it quite different from a Universal -different trackwork -no warp stearing and a 95bhp ford mercury motor.

Hi Eddy Historians are like lawyers they have opinions doesn't always mean they're right. I'm pretty sure the damage shown on the close up of Backers turret was what caused the traverse to stop -not damage sustained when the tank was derilict. The thing that upset me about that incident is that Tpr C. L. Provis Backers gunner after surviving a close shave with the shell into the turret was killed by a rifle shot to the head because he was too stout to fit into the shell scrape the crew were hidding, additionally acording to Tpr Chapman Backers co driver, he was more concerned in keeping the other crew members safe. By ordering the evacuation and demolition of a none burning tank all the crew were put in harms way- 4inches of armour is better than a fire swept beach- but it's easy to second guess some-one elses decision:(. It is significant that after Dieppe the Canadian Army Tank Brigade (11th Ontario, 12th Three Rivers and 14th Calgary) turned in their Churchills for Shermans before going active, due to apparent dissatisfaction with the Churchill after Dieppe- in part because of a severe lack of inteligence and analysis which wasn't surprising as only 2 Calgary men who landed returned to Britain and they were O/Rs so were probably ignored (Tpr P.W. Aide and L/cpl F. Howes). The only Canadian formation using Churchills in action in Europe were the Canadian Royal Engineers using AVREs. Personally if I had to be in any British Tank of WW2 for saftey(more hatches = better means of escape) and armour it would be the Churchill. Stuff the gun -just hope to get close enough to run the buggers down. Steve

A few web pics from the past decade showing derelict SKP- VKP in Sweden so possibly there may still be stuff out there.

Thanks for that Tony, certainly in Western Canada many older people are unimpressed with Churchill and Montbatten regarding this incident, although they are often otherwise very anglophile. Added to which the composition of the forces involved in Jubilee changed in that the 48th RTR was replaced by the Calgary rgt. making the sacrifice even more Canadian. The 48th RTR was a London based TA rgt and dare I say it was rather well connected- though I am sure the members of the 48th were totally commited. It's much easier for the ruling class to swallow the expected loss of men whose relatives are thousands of miles away and to salute civilians who survive occupation or bombing without warning or expected assistance. Steve

Thanks for that Tony, certainly in Western Canada many older people are unimpressed with Churchill and Montbatten regarding this incident, although they are often otherwise very anglophile. Added to which the composition of the forces involved in Jubilee changed in that the 48th RTR was replaced by the Calgary rgt. making the sacrifice even more Canadian. The 48th RTR was a London based TA rgt and dare I say it was rather well connected- though I am sure the members of the 48th were totally commited. It's much easier for the ruling class to swallow the expected loss of men whose relatives are thousands of miles away and to salute civilians who survive occupation or bombing without warning or expected assistance. Steve

The time line for the D.D. was it was demonstrated in the presence of Gen Eisenhower on 27-1-44 and a large batch of mostly M4A1s were converted in U.S.A and supplied within 6 weeks, many of these were very late production M4A1 75 like that exhibited at Slapton sands -some were re-manufactured early versions and several may have been M4 and M4hybrid. with their usual manufacturing know how there were enough US built D.D.s to re-equip some British units notably the 4/7th Dragoon Guards. The US 70th Tank Batalion modified its DDs after problems encountered at the slapton training area and they were certainly photographed on D.Day with a narrow breather tube fitted . it would be interesting if anyone has further input with regard to these mods. In fairness it is comparatively easy:nut: to convert a regular tank battalion to use DD tanks, although two U.S battalions converted were actually specialist batalions being trained for mine exploders and CDLs. It is another thing entirely to do this to an engineer unit added to which in 1944 the U.S. forces had several division of labour problems -there were both engineer assault batalions and naval combat demolition units. Although there was a very efficient training area for U.S engineers in North Devon trying to introduce an American version of the AVRE at a late stage would be difficult. Accepting that the British had no spare Churchills AVREs -there was an alternative in that Canadian Rams were being discharged from service and earlier Rams had doors- as Rams were basically a Sherman it would have been possible to refurbish 50 or so as engineer portees. The problem then begin to multiply, commanders entrenched attitudes have to change, tractor battalions equiped with DUKWs would have to be retrained or tanks crews "obtained" elsewhere, facility to use an amphibious landing training area would be necessary- not that they were not 100% employed. Changes would be necessary in the type of landing craft used and this is a problem, although most 1944 land craft tanks were superior to those used at Dieppe, they were still very vulnerable when close to shore of the 24 LCT used at Dieppe 10 were sunk or so badly damaged they had to be scrapped. So Catch 22 - put infantry on the beach to secure it for a landing of LCT borne tanks, which are necessary to allow infantry to secure the beach. Steve

Barrel construction is different too -to the extent that they are probably not interchangable.

The Swedes had some great vehicles

Hi eddy You certainly gave a some thought before posting mate:-D, many of the tanks returned to the beach to try to extricate the infantry and engineers trapped in the free fire void, but it has to be remembered that the tanks were only on red and white beach supporting the Essex, Hamiltons and Mont Royals. On green (Pourville) the Saskatchens and Camerons had no support, on Blue the Royals were again without tanks pinned down under the guns of the Bismarck & Rommel batteries at Neuville & Puys. Needless to say the commandos (yellow and orange beaches) were as usual without armoured support. Alpha company of 14th CATB did not land, reducing the number of tanks available by about 20 tanks. Actually only one tank Blondie T 68880 can with certanty be written off as a loss to the shingle -and only after it had stopped to release Hare -the Daimler Scout Car it was towing -stopping on sand or shingle is unwise as it allows the track to pack, of the other tanks that broke tracks all may have been due to other circumstances. The Germans had tried Panzer 3 (from X panzer) on the Dieppe beach earlier and had concluded the beach was impassable to tanks- so one-nil to the Churchill:D Maj. Page was unable to make an after battle report (as he was a POW) and his view of the Churchill is probably at least as biased as yours, in fact at least 2 tanks (Backer and Belicose) were damaged by penetrating gunfire and Backer was in effect knocked out. Having lost its track and unable to traverse its turret they expended the ammunition and evacuated the tank -an action leading to the death of its gunner, Backer was commanded by Lt Wallace. Lt. Wallace would have handed his tank over to his then dismounted C.O - Maj. Page had Wallace's tank not been destroyed, so the recollections were probably somewhat coloured by events. This photo shows gunfire had broken the track and had penetrated both the hull and turret. Belicose was very unlucky -one of the tanks that had gotten off the beach it returned to effect repairs, having taken so many hits on the glacis it had broken the steering handle mount, how they repaired it is uncertain but they did only to have a track break while attempting to return to the promenade via the Cassino, note the huge number of hits on the left track and horn -there is a single penetration in the upper left corner of the hull mg mounting plate oddly enough probably the thickest point of the Churchills hull. Maj. Page's "mk4" was actually a Mk1- MkIV in this case refers to infantry tank MkIV not Churchill Mk4- it's that bloody insane civil servant at the tank board again.:nut: so not the same as your Mk4- there were no Churchill Mk4 landed at Dieppe only Mk1, 2 and 3s. Incidently at least 1 Universal carrier was landed -from the Royal Regiment of Canada- so it managed to get onto the wrong beach. Different story most support tanks including DDs were late arrivals on D.day -however the main lesson was don't try to take a port or built up area, -so at Normandy the most specialist piece of equipments was the Mulberry ports Steve

To some extent it's my paraniod mentality but I wonder whether the acrimonious meeting of Stalin and Churchill only a few days before giving the go ahead for Jubilee may have forced Churchill and the CIGS hand into allowing what was already considered a dubious folly - I wonder if the sacrifice was not to prove a point! but perhaps I'm too cynical. The major result was the AVRE (armoured vehicle royal engineers) with its primary role of allowing engineers and charges to be carried across fire swept areas, it was proposed by a Canadian Royal Engineers Lieutenant J.H. Donovan, shortly after the raid. Most of the other "funnies" were already under development prior to Dieppe -some "specials" were actually went to Dieppe, there were 3 OKE flame throwers and 3 carpet layers (it being realised in training that expecting soldiers on foot to carry and un roll chespale mats for tanks was asking too much!). The "hush" operation which eventually became the scaled down Zeebruge raid in 1918- which tended to inspire the elan of troops slated for "Jubilee" -Britain always want to fight the previous war.

For the seller of course:-D anyway I thought you had one. Steve

No Tony Ferrets were post war, all the scout cars at Dieppe were Daimler Scout Cars:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Certainly some early armour for Cruiser Tank A13 Mk1 came from Boeher in Austria but most was home produced -that was primarily a problem of too much demand rather the too small a capacity -most of the big producers such as Beadmore were stressed out trying to supply the navy to bother with piddling little orders for 14mm plate. Additionally as far as I know CTA plate was home sourced. I really haven't given it much thought as to why tank armour is measured in metric whereas naval armour and boiler plate even in WW2 was still measured in weight - 1foot sq 40lb plate = 1inch thick etc -perhaps it was to facilitate arms exports.

Skeet shooting garden gnomes seems a good idea to me:-D

Operation Jubilee August 19th 1942. In an action which lasted almost exactly 14hours 3379 Canadian and 247 British became casulaties with over 2000+ becoming prisoners. Units involved were Royal Rgt. of Canada (including an attachment of Commandos), Essex Scottish Rgt., Royal Hamilton Lt Inf., Fusilers Mont-Royal, South Saskatchenewan Rgt. Queens Own Cameron Highlanders, B & C squadrons of 14th CATB- the Calgary Rgt. Canadian Royal Engineers, Royal Canadian Artillery and other elements. British No3 and 4 Commandos plus half a company of US Rangers acted as flank protection. In addition losses were suffered by naval forces from the 34 vessels lost- from the Destroyer Berkley to lesser units and of course RAF air crews. It is still debated what if anything of value was gained from the raid and is a very raw memory for Canadians.

Perhaps, though the borough of Berwick on Tweed is still technically at war with Russia although I don't think I'll be in danger of meeting up with Putin and his mates on the A1 north of Alnwick:cool2:. Wars end generally after both sides agree an armistice or that one regime ceases to exist as a governmental power- in both the cases of Germany under the 3rd Reich and the Empire of Japan as an absolutist monarchy -or as an imperial front for a Shogunate, both ended with the occupation and subugation of their territories by the victorious powers -including in the case of Japan by the Soviet Union who took over the Northern-most Japanese islands and exclusively in Japan itself by the MacArthur shogunate.

If you want to be nit picking about this fighting officially ended 15-8-45 I can't recalled if it was a midnight 14th-15 8-45 cease fire or whether it came in later on 15-8-45 but for the most part that is irrelevant. The official surrender of the Empire of Japan was on USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on the morning of 2nd September 1945 taken by Gen. MacArthur and as he said and you can watch the famous newsreel on many sites and the wording was "I - Gen. MacArthur -accept the unconditional surrender of the Empire of Japan on behalf of the United Nations- and the representative of the Emperor of Japan will now sign the instrument of surrender"- (limping guy in top hat and tail signs document) -MacAthur then said "these proceeding are at a close" Many wars end without a formal peace treaty, but others had in effect peace treaties that the wider world did not accept -for example the formal treaty between the 3rd Reich and Vichy, The Netherlands, Norway Denmark and Belgium and there was never a peace treaty between the 3rd Reich and Poland. There is a big difference between unconditional surrender and armistice. In 1945 both Germany and Japan (unlike Italy and similarly Bulgaria) were faced with only one term of capitulation -unconditional surrender and and fighting would not cease until this term was met- or no Germans or Japanese forces existed. In Korea the Communist forces and UN forces had fought to a stalemate and an armistice was instituted and still holds. There was no similarity to WW2. I have to say that from a disinterested view point trying to make out that POW compensation should have been paid until to point of San Fransisco treaty would probably be a major reason that there was such an unsatisfactory and protracted solution to the negotiations. -It would be rather like an ex convict wrongly convicted but released after serving only part of a sentance, claiming compensation for a full term of imprisonment. Prisoners of War are classed as released from captivity a soon as ther previous administration hands over respossiblity -be it handed over to the Red Cross (as in the case of seriously ill POWs of Germany in WW2) or liberated by Allied forces or in the case of many Japanese victims that their own officers took over the administration of the camps. Steve

Thanks for that Bluebell- I am making an assumption that the drive train (transmission) of the U/C was under stress by an un-governed motor hence its use to protect it - rather than the motor itself- or why bother with a smaller capacity unit at all. I hope you will agree that the drive train of a tracked vehicle is a very different environment than that of a 1/2 -3/4 1-1.5 ton truck:D

If you've got to be nit picking VJ day and its anniversarys marks the day that Japanese forces ceased fighting at the behest of the Emperor of Japan. However even then some Japanese units continued to fight -at least one attempt was made to shoot down RB32s carrying out recce flights to ensure the terms of surrender were being adhered to and perhaps to be pedantic there were still Japanese soldiers surrendering on Guam well into the 1970s -but then there is always some-one who doesn't accept the actuality.:shocked:

Thanks for posting the photos -they help explaining the differences between K drums and Bren AA drums which we already discused on the other thread "Brens on Jeeps" which tended to turn into a discussion on the differences between the K Gun and the Bren, probably would have been as well to combine them:nut: I couldn't find any photos on the web of the underside of the 2 different types of mags. and I don't have access to the genuine article. Steve

IMO it has the look of an anti-aircraft system rather than a wire guided A/T system -if it was a A/TGW system I would have thought it would have a sighting system rather like a primative version of a Swingfire, the command pod looks as though it opens to deploy sights not dissimilar to a quad polsten or a maxon turret. initally I thought it was an RBS 70 mount but the rest looks too old-it got a distinctly 1950s look about the trailer (note the door handle- looks like an Morris 1000) - perhaps a launcher for the Green Lizard or a variant of the Orange William (without the HESH warhead penalty)