steveo578

The Churchill cards show the Tank number -overwritten with the post war 6 figure index, shows type (but oddly this is incomplete as it doesn't show the original configuration -another story) with weapon in the case of specialist vehicle it is endorsed B/L AVRE etc. the final fate of the vehicle is noted with a depot for example Ruddington and struck off (s/o)- target -(sometimes with range),- scrapped. Vehicles generally include to which scrapper the tank was sent-(Cohens Wards etc) and of course the date. I would think that dispossal to ranges depended on whether the scrap demand was high or low, in the 1950s it tended to be high and the majority of s/o tanks would have been sold for scrap. No doubt the Government controlled exports quite tightly -they would want to avoid stuff ending up in the "wrong" hands but the vehicle depots would decide which were fit for export. However both Finland and Israel received vehicles clasified as scrap -this was possilby political -but certainly Israeli stuff (Cents M3H/T) weren't in the best condition. AFVs such as Universals were often scrapped by under utilised ROF factoies- being light and often riveted they were easy to reduce without large amount of gases or costly equipment. Others such as Cromwells and Sextons that were too trashed for export were also broken up without a great deal of effort. The Churchills seem to have hung around longer although the Mk1-6 were riveted the Mk7-8 were not easily cut up -there is a story the Irish buried at least one after trying to cut one up. As Adrian said locality would also have an effect, certainly Comets were depoted near training areas for annual camps by TA and reservists. My local training depot 43rd RTR had several in Newcastle in the 1950s and the local REME even had its own training hulks well into the 1970s. I could imagine the maintained comets were disposed onto ranges, hence those that were obviously driven on, probably the same fate befell the last of the local training hulks -a Cent and a Saracen. Local training establishment could have an effect although this in the case of tanks was probably more of a wartime factor. Artillery ranges may have received tanks more commonly associated with that arm of service, such as O/Ps. However things that make research difficult, in the 1950s nobody photographed wrecks, additionally wreck in certain circumstances were cut up as soon as gunnery camps ended for security reasons ( the British seemed unaware that the Soviets were already aware that HESH existed). One other factor would be disposals by new C/Os getting rid of unwanted previously cherished gateguards.:shocked: Steve

Hi Adrian notice that the photos of the A24 hatch has both the grooved rebate and has the bolt I mentioned which allows locking of the lid from the outside. A photo of a churchill roof showing the hatch which seems to lack the recessed bolt. However the Churchill 3 photo article in Armour in Focus shows the roof of the Aberdeen exhibit, the hatch has a bolt head however with a cover plate welded over it. But the APG Churchill 3 is probably contemporary with the A24 shown. Steve

Just to clarify where did the infomation that some Char B1 bis were fitted with 75mm gun was this a local mod. in the Channel Islands? the only Char B SPG I am aware of is the 105mm LFH 18 fitted to 24 tanks and probably lost on the Eastern front. The standard Char B1 & B1 bis had a 75mm gun in the hull, there were quite a few flame throwers around the Paras knocked one out at Arnhem. Steve

Panhard AML A/Cs were developed in the 1950s and entered service in 1960 with various turret designs and weapons. Still around but alot have been scrapped in the last decade. The pre war Panhard is the AMD 178 which had a 25mm gun and riveted structure and was quite advanced for its day surviving as a design into Post War Colonial service with a new turret and 47mm gun.

Snapper They are SU100, there are photos posted on Warsaw pact Forum of SU100 and T34 tanks in rehersal parades. Steve

Adrian Thanks for that, I thought it was a No1 mk1 commanders hatch just looked much bigger with the ruler. The idea of even a comparatively early Centaur IV would be unlikely -especially as the 95mm how. would have been salvaged prior to placement, the number manufactured pieces being fairly critical, unless the vehicle had been completely burned out. Of course as a single vehicle on the site a Centaur/Cromwell would fit the other requirement -a tank with rubber shod wheels which the Centaur would have and would be very apparent even to an untrained eye. By the same test would eliminate the other 95mm how alternative the Churchill V. Of course another alternative could be a cut off gun. Pity I liked to idea of a Matilda on the moors- I'm such a romantic:undecided:

Hi Mantog This type of hatch and its variants was fitted to a fair number of tanks in WW2, I didn't have a suitable photo of one from an early Churchill -most photos I have show the later All Round Vision cupola No1 Mk1-2 (sometimes called a ARV cupola just to confuse people) Similar hatches were fitted to A22 Churchill all marks to Mk7, A24 Cavalier, A27L Centaur, A27M Cromwell and A30 Challenger. The only thing I'm not happy about is the width, but as I don't have one to measure I can't be sure it is not just memory makes things smaller, but I think the thickness of the plate and lack of locking bolt probably makes it a early Churchill hatch in my opinion. I can discount anything earlier having this style of hatch -Matilda 2 (A12) had a more semi-circular style, none of the early cruisers or Valentines had anything similar, I've even looked at early Ram and Grant. As you said there is no evidence of another complete tank there- and a Churchill is fairly bulky, however a turret is possible -as is the other alternative that a hatch was thrown into an empty engine bay on the Matilda prior to placement and was blown out, things like that can happen, although the damage on the plate does tend toward it being in the vertical position when it was hit, which would dislodge it one hit breaking each of the hinges in turn -the second hit blowing it off the tank and into the ground where you found it. It is common practice to put hatches in open position on targets to increase the target area. I realy like the horse story, I'm sure there will be more input, just sad that film and cameras were so rare in the 1940s-1950s. Steve

Many years ago a story went around that two tanks had been found somewhere in the Channel Islands but it turned out to be a misunderstanding the tanks in question were fuel tanks buried in a hill side to supply a generator for a Command site. I thought all the Char B 1bis were returned to France save one that went to Bovington, at least all those that were capable of moving, there are as you know photos of them being loaded onto LCT-LST with the aid of a D6 bulldozer. I suppose a disabled -beyond easy recovery tank could have been entombed, certainly in the UK just after the end of WW2 AFVs that were automotively defective were refused by REME-RASC disposal units leading to the odd vehicle being dumped in quarries and even hedges. There is very little evidence to what happened to the R35 SPGs although again there is some reports of them being dumped off Jersey, so possibly one of those. As to the geological conditions, many Channel Island tunnels are into mud-rock, highly unstable and very wet. Anyway look forward to seeing what you find, I'm so excited I can hardly wait- its better than a trip to disney land:nut: Steve

Further to my previous post (scanner now working) to photos of an A24 Cavalier commanders hatch note similarity to that published by Mantog except for locking bolt on extreme left. Drawing (A J North Bellona publication 1968) showing Matilda 1 roof. It would be perfectly possible for a Churchill 1 or 2 turret to be placed along side the A11 on a firing range -there were a lot of spare Mk1-2 turrets when Churchill rebuilds started although 200 or so were mothballed against future use- originally for Matilda Mk2 A12 and later for the Coventry Armoured Car (1943-44). I doubt a complete Churchill Mk1-2 would have been there I think it might have been noticed-but nothing is impossible. It would be interesting historically to know what the firing range in question was, regular forces training , home guard or other, there is very little information about the training areas in WW2. Mantog Again the thickness about 18mm tends to point toward Churchill Mk1-2, it all adds to the mystery which is the "joy" of researching. Incidently the damage is probably a mortar bomb rather than anything like a PIAT or Boys A/T rifle, a PIAT would burn a hole a Boys would leave a bullet scoop in the "hit" side, although it could be a Northover projector or a Smith gun at a stretch. Steve

Adrian Barrell and Mantog Hi both, It's probably not Matilda 1 unless there were more than one type of Matilda 1 turret hatch which is possible although the A11 production was small (139) it did have variations in styles and sizes of engine deck doors. I haven't been able to find a photo of the prototype turret roof- which may be possible. The Matilda 1 had a 3 piece roof (not dis-similar to the Valentine 3- also Vickers) the forward section fixed with a periscope and two quadrant sections with a single hinge on each -if the gun is 12 o'clock the hinges were at 4 and 8 oclock (I haven't got a scanner on today so description is the best I can manage). It could be the rear most engine deck cover -the size is right but I sure this hatch was a simple rectangle. I've looked at a wider range of tanks such as the Lt Tanks MkV and VI and the nearest in both shape and fittings but seems too large, is a Churchill Mk1 -which of course was a standard hatch-cupola for many wartime types. I give it further thought- sorry I can't be more specific. Steve

One of the better ones out of SECO -very nice

In the past Borden Ontario have been quite snippy with none Canadian passport holders-but it depended on who was on duty- the age old thing give some people temp. regiment police bands and they start behaving like Basil Faulty:shocked:. The main problem with Fort Hood, Fort Sill and some of the Canadian collections is that they are in Military bases-although Baumholder in Germany is a normal museum, but it is attitude of mind I still have a letter from the Greek MOD inviting me to view their closed collections- on production of the letter-which is very nice:-). I think representation to the U.S. Military Attache might be a place to start, after all the British and Australians are allies and the U.S. would be quite miffed if they were restricted in the UK. Steve

what -like custard:nut:

Thanks for the calification Richard. Actually I thought the thread refered to the JCB (earthmover) plant at Leeke Lane Staffs, but the posting refering to Rochester threw me- there was a JCB facility at or around Rochester but is now an indusrial estate. Steve

The Isle of wight U tube video confirms a Mk7 AVRE there.

As it was seen in Rochester then it might be one of the Mk7s that were later at the Cadmans yard if you look at the Armour in Focus site there are two which are likely candidates one marked Mk7 croc is shown with a short gun and the other Mk7 a crudely restored gateguard on a tank bridge has a 17pdr gun barrel fitted. Shades of the plan to fit the Mk7 with the 77mm HV toward the end of WW2,:nut::-D For completeness the Sheffield Churchill 7 AVRE is also shown. Eddy FYI the Sheffield tank was not Local Authority owned -ownership became a bit confused after Newtons owners went into receivership and effectively the title to the asset was was "lost". The L/A input was that the Acheology department "knew nothing" of the disappearance of what amounted to a local landmark without notification- try that with a tree on your own property or even unauthorised change to your doors or windows of your property (Part L building code). Steve

Yes that one was a Churchill 7 AVRE the site was previously the Newton plant in Sheffield that built Churchills hence the placement of the tank as a memorial gateguard. It's not really a secret where it went. There was a fair bit of controversey on other site about its removal- especially the inaction(indifference) of the Sheffield Local Authorities. I thought mogmaner was enquiring about the Stoke on Trent site perhaps he would care to enlighten me. The Mk7 AVRE never lost it gun so is unlikely to be the tank seen by Mogmaner Steve

Bob Thanks for posting that-really nice pic. Steve

As one historian put it, "a sudden cold draught and two merlin shaped holes in the Arakan plateau," however I believe the problem was resolved by 1944. Steve

It could be any of a number of Churchills but possibly was David Russels Mk7, which is now at Kevin Wheatcrofts- it certainly had been de-gunned whilst in Pounds

Poor Marek -does he realise he is going to clean down a Universal armed with only a wire brush?

Tomas thanks for the info - not intended as a critism -any Sherman better than none -so the chances are it's one of the M4A4(T) type that was in service in France from the 1950s to early mid 1960s, they had a radial engine like a Sherman 1. The other shermans look like a retracked Grizzly, probably from France too and a 105 howitzer M4 which would be appropriate for US forces liberating Pilsen. Fireflies are pretty rare outside museums- but I'm really surprised the Czech tank museum has not acquired some Shermans. Steve

Yep nice one Eddy at least this one has running gear and tracks I suppose its time for some elbow grease Steve

nice photos, interesting that the Sherman with the chalk marking "freedom"-"to prague" etc seems to be an M4A4 of some sort a gun tank not generally used by US 2AD in Europe -only for training and the odd transfer from the British.

AlienFTM Fair point, my point is that T64 and T80 were high integrity value for the armoured force on point against a NATO first strike or first use of NBC -which the Soviets believed was a likely senario, whereas the other types were less capable for example it is unlikely that Soviet troops in Afghanistan would be operating in full NBC status after the intital seizure of Kabul on new years eve 1979. As would Russian 2nd line and milita troops operating in Georgia in the 2008 where Russian forces were again using T62. Whilst available, it is also very unlikely that soviet equiped forces such as Syria would have used NBC kit- although the Israelis considered the use of biological and chemical agents was iminant and therefore equiped rebuild tanks such as M51 Isherman with M5A2 NBC "noddy suit masks" from contemporary M48s. Steve