steveo578

In 1992 I recall seeing a 25pdr being towed along with 105mm light guns on the M11 near Stanstead airport, as I'd been on a stag night-day/night:nut: I determined that me and drink were not compatable:shocked: Wasn't that something to do with a Wilfred Owen bi-og? with Lewis guns?

Thanks for that Montie, the memorial where the Clive Gun is may confirm that the Boer Long Toms were 155mm calibre as the shells surounding the Clive gun are said to be 155mm Schneider common shells. I tend toward the 155mm Mle1877 as being the 4 guns used but several photos show the gun apparaently to be smaller -though it is difficult to judge as Boers could well be of larger stature than expected . Steve

Possibly to get a commonallity of supply with the expected deployment the Windsor which could restrict this action to NWE. Perhaps the perpetuation of the smaller capacity 85hp motor may have something to do with a transmission weakness as U/Cs were governed to 60bhp at one stage. Considering the tendancy for most Canadian Ford wheeled vehicles to have the 95bhp motors it seems odd to use what is in effect a none standard type.

Probably not, I don't think the usual suspects for using old kit -India and Pakistan has any, certainly Pakistan use MG3 for heavy support weapon. I think that 1968 date for last service in the British Army is an admin. date for the withdrawal of British forces from Borneo, where Vickers were retained for base defence by special forces. The last official use by regular infantry was by Guards battalions probably few used after Suez Steve

Yes they are probably MH Mk3 the final version of the forward engined armoured car and well worth preserving, many of the earlier types (Mk1-3) were deturreted in service and fitted with various weapons as more flexible scout/armoured card. But the nature of the South African Armoured Cars of this era -virtually no castings -all flat plates would make restoration feasable, for example stowage boxes on Mk4s have domestic 4inch door hinges welded into place- functionality or what:D Most were out of service after the end of the desert war although some may have remained in service with south African and Indian troops serving in Italy and in patrol-police work in Cyprus, Greece and Palestine- so lots of historical possiblities. The Mk1-3 are quite rare without doing a search the only complete one I'm aware of is at SAMOMH - apart from the ford drive train components -no connection to the carrier though

Excellent input-probably goes some way in explaining the various confusion with regard to the motors fitted to Canadian carriers. Steve

By U.S. off the eastern Florida coast, by Cuba using SU100 and IS2 tanks, there are also some diving hulks off the Jordanian port/ resort of Aqaba.

Perhaps they are trying to convince themselves it a Windsor -delusion is a wonderful thing.:nut:

The turrets look like Sherman- single large hatch on right side and the size compared to the pick up truck the thing on the extreme right could be a carrier probably a Universal but could be a Loyd or even an Oxford

Strange how it looks smaller in green than it does in the primer coat

Bluebell Are you implying that Rob love regards Eddys carrier as a "Canadian built No2 Mk1" or that he says that all Canadian Mk1 carriers had an 85bhp motor. This argument needs closure I put my argument in post #103 and #111 supported by Ajmacs post #106 -if you have any new evidence please feel free to post it, I actually don't care if some-one proves me wrong, but what I'm not prepared to get involved in a "flaming exchange" it is not acceptable on this forum. Steve

Do the obvious try changing the battery pack from the 432 into the 439 in the first instance -easier than swaping anything else around or doing an in depth wiring check, the fault you describe sounds like a number of failed battery cells at the least (but sometimes the battery can recover by putting it on a bench charger for a day or two)-was the jump just batteries or was it a supplying vehicle under power.

You will only see an ammeter deflection if the batteries are flat and you have had to start the 432 by a jump start. Otherwise as sirhc say turn all the lights (and anything else that pulls current) and it should show an increased reading. But as the batteries sound as though they are near capacity there's probably little wrong with the charging system.

Yes I've seen worse too, when involved in motor racing 20 years ago our local organisors awarded a trophy for the best charitable effort (a laudable award you would think). The award was a piston from a Porsche 924 -not polished or plated- the same condition as it was when it went through the crank case wall mounted on a piece of stained soft wood.:-( I imagine the tight fisted wadd of an organiser had another 3 waiting to be awarded later and probably had nicked a plank of wood form under the bath to mount them on.

Yes RSO but with steel resilient wheels rather than the simple RSO pressed things- remember there were RSOs converted to SP mounts for 7.5cm Pak 40 in limited numbers including a narrow version perhaps for airborne use

Can't see why they wouldn't use them -they built them and the loyd replacement the windsor was along time coming, but I doubt the "CT" on the plate is a reference to Canadian usage -painted on the hull yes but having the VIN plate changed seems unlikely and all the stamps are the same anyway. A Canadian ford built Loyd should surely be a No3 like the U/Cs so must be a UK built vehicle.

The contrary is the case the weakness apparent in the Mk1 to 6 got significantly worse in the Mk7. In the earlier Marks the armour was bolted and riveted onto a mild steel welded backing structure and while the armour could be broken away from the adjoining plate and bent out of shape but the flexible m/s backing could prevent it dropping onto the crewmen. In the Mk7 the hull was a single seem welded structure, it was found during tests that some welded test hulls were failing in that when heavy rounds hit the front plates the highly sloping 60mm glacis could be creased by a round bending it and breaking it away from the front,back and sides- it was also found the vertical drivers plate allbeit 6inches thick could be distorted by a hit in the centre for the simple reason that it had two large circular weak points -the drivers door and the machine gun mount. Nothing could be done to fix the latter problem but the 60mm Glacis welds were strengthened- and MK7 already issued to the troops for D-Day were withdrawn to carry out the fix -which must have been good for moral at that sensitive time. It is speculative as so few Churchills now remain for examination that this weakness could have been due to differing welding production techniques by the various companies involved in hull sub assembly- as Alastair (Ajmac) has noted in his recent Loyd restoration posts there was little production standardisation beyond that necessary for the basic design and this may well applied to the Churchill as well as the light loyd vehicle. As a secondary point another fault with the Churchill became apparent during its 1st active operaton at Dieppe on 19-08-42, at least 2 of the 29 vehicles that landed were compromised by damage to the drivers controls which were bolted under the glacis, numerous hits by various weapons on the glacis caused the control bracket to fail - which meant the ability to steer was lost. One tank "Belicose" managed to return to the beach and repair the fault before it became terminal, only to throw a track as it was returning to the promenade. The other tank lost its steering control when hit numerous times as it climbed the sea wall, having lost the ability to turn it was still capable of climbing forward and backward, which is what it did for the rest of the day- climbing the sea wall -firing at targets and dropping back if the return fire became too intense. Unfortnately as no after battle reports were available from 14CATR (as all but 2 of the survivors became POWs) this fault went un-noticed until the Churchill went into action again in Tunisia.

Hi Alex Have you considered the wheels could have been refitted at a later date during a rebuild -the data plates rarely reflect this and the vehicle disposed of from reserve. Steve

Yes a bit remiss but then again consider the A17 tetrarch another Vickers design but after Loyds tenure ended. A light Cruiser tank with fuel tanks in the nose -allbeit with a firewall and automatic drains to prevent explosion. At least as you say the Loyd carrier was not actually seen as a fighting vehicle.

It is a myth that the huge Sherman production slowed down the availablity of something better the 1st mock ups of the T20 (the M4s successor) was completed in May 1942 and the 1st T20 series pilot vehicle a T23 was available in January 1943 and the T20 pilot was available in July 1943- neither type was developed enough to replace the M4 -both had M4 style suspension at that stage and the 76mm M1 cannons fitted were found to be defective and 1000 produced for use in both T20 series vehicles and M4s all had to be scrapped. The 1st vehicle recognisable as a Pershing -the T25E1/T26E1 were produced as a limited run of 40 T25E1s with 10 heavier T26E1 produced at or about the same time from February to May 1944. Production of the M26 (then designated T26E3) started at Fisher in November 1944 so it took 30months from concept to production -which isn't that long considering how different the M4 and M26 are- in effect the only thing in common is the turret ring diameter. So if the US had waited for the Pershing the US Army in Italy and NWE would have been an infantry only organisation. Steve

Hi eddy you're probably recalling that wreck M10c "Achillies" you saw on Warcop- front armour 38mm side armour 20mm. We all get beaten up:beatenup: from time to time -difference on this forum is that it doesn't get nasty:D Steve

Hi Adrian Its the composition of the smoke agent that is the problem, in WW2 it was common to have white phosporus smoke bombs and that does not need any further discussion to its effect. But even the common alternative titanium tetrachloride (TiCl4) could cause blindness and resperatory failure- especially if ignited in a confined space the exothermic reaction itself is sufficient to cause serious burns. In WW1 TiCl4 was used as a so called none lethal war gas and from the 1920s until the introduction of C/S it was also used as a civil police tear gas, it is very similar to but milder in effect to Lewisite (C2H2AsCl3)- the WW2 cold weather alternative to mustard gas in that it is reactive with water in the eyes lungs and sweat areas of the body producing hydrocloric acid. Assuming a crewman who has ingested-inhailed-absorbed this stuff was revived (and I would baulk at trying to give "kiss of life" to some-one with a lung full of aerosol HCl), the chances are not good, permenant lung and eye damage, skin grafts and de-calicification of bone with a greatly reduced quality of life and probably an early death. While I completely agree with you that nothing is as deadly as a cordite fire in a confined space, the so called blister and tear producing "agents" were just as lethal. steve

Well yep, that really puts my toubled mind at rest:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: as I said before it is a unique asset- and if everything is up fornt no-one will object to explaining the circumstances of its removal from the collection- for example is it being restored as a runner?

Oh well at least it has a good home and it will help to have a complete one fairly close by.

The dangerous plate on the Churchill 7 was the sloping 60mm plate between the nose plate and the visor plate a hit on the visor plate could dislodge it downward onto the drivers lap/legs and obviously a hit on the plate itself would do the same- it was known before it went into service and again they had to another remedial service on some vehicles that had already got to Normandy. Even on the older lighter armoured Churchills even a "light" hit in this area could cause the driving controls to land on the hapless drivers lap thighs etc -bit of a ***l crusher or what? As you say catching fire was the diffence and one thing that bothers me about British tanks is the placement of things like the ammo for 2inch mortars which tends to defeat efforts to make sure the ammunition is stowed low in the hull. Steve