steveo578

Absolutely agree, but I don't believe in the EU either, Neither the EU nor HM governments of either colour would agree to rebate one penny from their grubby little paws :-D Steve

Assuming it is still in it I suspect the transmission would be knackered by testing, It looks a bit high so perhaps it was removed for display. Other than transmission problems the motor is similar to a T34 and therefore is relatively robust. Steve

Naughty naughty I know what you're are thinking and they would be very upset:shocked::-D. Steve

Hi Eddy In brief I think the Russians used play-doe during their manufacture:-D Steve

fair comment There is a reasonable photo on MCSpool's post dated 6-2-2010 which shows it to have an angle joint turret of Nr.174 type and not an Nr 183 as I previously posted- the original photo as you said was very poor. While you may be correct that the hull looks too sharp for WW2 Soviet production, I have already said that turret swaps have to be taken into account when trying to date T34s. As to Polish manufactured vehicles having improved wading equipment, that was also fitted to stocks of ex Soviet WW2 tanks in Polish service. The turret has the remenant of a szachownica on it and the owner has already said that it is ex Polish service- it would be fairly pointless to mark controls in Polish if it was ex Bulgarian! The turret of a post war manufactured Polish tank has a very finely finished casting similar to the Czech type with a prominant bulge on the left turret side as I described in my previous post. Therefore IMO the turret is not in keeping with a post war manufacture hull and to be certain that the hull is post war i.e. has a glacis to lower hull weld without a fillet I would need a better photo. Steve

Hi Alex this is my take on aging a T34. The T34/85 can be differentiated by approximate year of manufacture and by the differences of the factory producing the tank. Like any other high volume manufactured vehicle there are variations including in field rebuilds and turret swaps and post war remanufacture. To differentiate by year of manufacture Russian T34/85 production can be divided into four years of manufacture but these are nominal as they cover dates from very late 1943 to mid 1945. 1943 The first model T34 1943 model produced in early in January 1944 (some say last week of December 1943) as an interim tank. It has the following features D5 T gun (as fitted to SU85). Fat wasted turret casting Vision slits and pistol ports on each side of the turret, Cupola, loaders hatch and the twin ventilator further forward than the standard production T34/85s at the widest part of the turret. Cupola had two door split hatch with periscope in hatch. Roof plate long type, abuts mantlet bolt on cover. 77° turret rear. Turret lifting lugs were four inverted U shaped loops, welded to the upper turret sides Sighting periscope was a PTK 5 (looking like an up turned parsnip). Hull rear hatches were heavy weight and the radio aerial was fitted to the hull as in the T34/76 as the radio was operated by the hull gunner. This type was only produced for a few months until about end of March 1944 some of this production had a revised roof form with cupola and other components further back as would be standard in the standard 1944 tank. There are also a small number which combine turrets from the standard 1944 nr.112 production with D5 T guns. This type description is for reporting purposes only if any of these three types exist they will be only in museums or the bottom of Ukrainian and Baltic lakes. If you did come across one head straight to the bank and pray the dealer doesn’t know what it is. 1944 The main production T34/85 started at Nr.112 in late March/ April 1944 and almost at the same time at two other plants. The three plants produce different style of turret casting just to complicate matters. However features are relevant to all standard production 1944 T34/85s. Most features as model 1943 with the following differences ZIS S 53 gun Vision slit above left pistol port eliminated. Roof components set back from mid line. Mk4 sighting periscope. Radio in turret with mast on turret. Four horned type lifting lugs. This type continued until end of 1944 1945 production type Production started late in 1944 and as three plants were involved there would be overlaps as older components were used up. Main differences;- One piece cupola hatch with periscope fixed in a fixed portion of the cupola roof The ventilator are single domes of greater height and are fixed one at the rear and one forward of the crew hatches ,above the gun breach, both on centre line. 1946 production type. Often called Post War production style there is evidence of its use in April 1945 and in Manchuria. Only apparent difference from previous model is;- Elimination of vision slit on right side of turret. which probably first appeared on Nr 112 Gorky tanks All production models had detail differences in the hull particularly around the rear plate hinges and joint and are noted in manufacturer differences. As previously mentioned and to complicate matters further. Gorky Factory No. 112 aka the Krasnoye Sormovo Zavod nr. 112 were joined in production of T34/85 by Factory No.174 in Omsk and Factory No.183 in Nizhni Tagil also named the I.V. Stalin, Ural Tank Works. The three factories turret castings differed markedly and this has to be added to the three ZIS S 53 gun production periods outlined above. Nr 112 (Gorky) had two types of casting, a hard edge and a soft edge turret, the hard edge had a sharp edge lower edge stretching rearward from the mid point of the turret waste around the bustle whereas the soft style is rounded Nr112 castings retain the fat style turret waste and the turret rear in angled at 77°. Nr. 174 turret casting are often referred to as angle joint turrets as they have a distinct casting mark set at angle on the mantlet cheek which continues from the casting and is the main differentiation from Gorky soft edge casting. Although angle joints turrets have flattened sides at the widest part of the casting it is less apparent than in Nr183 turrets. The rear of the turret is near vertical at 83-5° Nr. 183 is the most diverse of the wartime castings, sometimes referred to as the Flattened side casting. It has a flattened style waste (more apparent than in Nr174 turrets) and near vertical rear as in the Nr. 174 types. The Nr. 183 has a horizontal casting line and many also have vertical marks on the turret ring section which appear to be caused by wear on the moulding tools on some castings. Where the Nr.183 differs most is in the roof plate configuration Nr112 and Nr.174 turrets have similar roof plate characteristics, in these types the plate is welded into the roof and extends to the edge of the bolted on mantlet access plate. In Nr 183 there is an integral cast section across the front of the turret roof and the mantlet access is bolted to it, the welded in turret roof is separated from the mantlet access plate by a cast section about 100mm wide. The Nr 183 mantlet is also narrower than those of other manufacturers 790 against 730mm. The rear of the turret is near vertical at 83-5° To complicate matters there are wartime production types that are from unknown factories or sub contracting foundries for example there is a T34/85 casting similar to the so called laminate hexagonal 76mm turret, it has distinct multi faceted moulding marks on the turret. Further, there is a degree of creep in manufacture notably with Nr174 which vary somewhat in the shape of the waste of the turret and some Nr183 which show signs of mould distress. Hulls. There are two types of rear hull access panel hinges Nr 112 and Nr174 use large hinges but differ in the position of lower plate edge, whereas Nr183 have very small hinges and have the same lower plate edge as Nr112 hulls. There is some variation in front hull to lower glacis plate welding but it does not seem to be year or manufacturer specific. Post war things get worse, in addition to re-manufacture both Poland and Czechoslovakia manufactured their own T34 with a distinct turret casting, possibly sharing production as both countries turrets seem similar. This turret has a very fine casting with a distinct dip in the casting mark on the waste of the turret, which is not flattened but has a distinct bulge on the left side which covers the area where the traverse control is located, this gives the impression that the casting moulds differ from standard Soviet castings in that there is an attempt to reduce the weight of the turret without compromising armour thickness. Both Czech and Polish produce tanks have all the other features of standard Gorky T34/85 as regard ventilators and vision slits. Wheels, Wartime manufacture solid and the so called spider wheel with ribs and 12 large and 6 small holes. Post war 1960s rebuild tanks have T54 style Starfish wheels with ten spokes imprinted into a solid disk (with ten holes). Hope that helps with T34/85 ID, anyone who wants to correct any errors please feel free to jump in, I sure there are errors, variations and lots of other T34 details to explore. Steve

It’s not clear in the quoted site whether this eyesight test is compulsory for all drivers from the outset. Like much legislation in the past twenty years at best half baked with good intention at worst a poorly disguised intent to give interest groups a financial boost. If a provisional licensed car driver had to produce a eye test certificate or prescription at the time of the test or do a card test as in the DMV in the U.S.A, all well and good but if it applies only to commercial drivers plus car drivers who ticked the corrective lens box then it will fail to deal with the problem. A few years ago it was found that at least 5% of 16 year olds (ie school leavers) were clinically mon optic, which "the number plate across the car park test" does not pick up. More importantly current optician eye test fail to address lack of acuity, 30 years ago my local police force had a young probationer who had a eye test rating of 20/15 (better than standard) but his ability to observe was abysmal, good eyesight yes –sharp eyed not a hope. With regard to re-tests and improving the quality of driving in general, it would be more prudent to restrict new drivers in particular to vehicles of a defined power weight ratio rather than leave it to control by the insurance industry. Further a new classification for four wheel drive qualification is certainly needed, especially after seeing the lack of ability of drivers of Chelsea tractors in the recent poor weather.

Captain Crank Are the photos you posted of U.S. forces in training in U.S.A.?

Got it now thanks for the explaination, I certainly can understand why it was abandoned- for example if the front wheels became bogged on full lock it would be impossible to "turn out" by engaging reverse

The drawing you show is a Mk2 which carried a 30cal Browning as does the Mk1 you show in the photo, if a Bren was carried by a Mk1 or 1/2 then a M1919 tripod would be pointless as a Bren would not fit. so either the tripod would be dispensed with or a Bren tripod would be carried- it probably easier to make the bracket fit a Bren tripod than make a Bren fit a M1919 tripod.

I'm sure you know what you're talking about and I know I'm going to get a head ache with this, if reverse is engaged at full lock how does the front wheels straighten themselves out if there is no progression in reverse? A pointer to some on line instructional site might be easier assuming there is one.

AFAIK the tank museum does not recieve tax payers money (except as a tax rebate) therefore the point about Third World Debt is basically irrelevant (personally I don't believe in cancelling Third World Debt either). So if private individuals wish to contribute to a fund for the restoration of either Tiger it is their perogative, I have to say that I think they should contribute a similar amount to restoration of British tanks at the museum and subscribe to any nominated service charity as without the British -Commonwealth and Allied servicemen who fronted up to these "worthy links" we would not be able to even discus this. Steve

Bren tripod were officially issued at one per platoon in Infantry Bats more if Brens were issued at 2 per squad. the bren tripod was the same a the Czech ZB26 30 tripod so very common all over the world even to the extent it was used in Vietnam to support Chinese 57mm recoiless RLs.- possibly because Chinese nationalists were supplied with Brens in .303 .30-06 and 7.92 and German supplied ZBs Ferrets both 1/1 and 1/2 had Brens .303 and 7.62 as standard weapon so if a tripod was carried it would be a Bren tripod. Sorry only picture I've got is from Edzell World Firearms 1977

Saumur managed to get there Tiger 2 going so its not beyond possiblities I have to say I'm more impressed by a King Tiger that a Tiger 1 and I don't see why people should regard 131 as more "historic", but again it could be a huge drain of resources to get it going whatever its interior/power train condition considering the requirement for the cooling system rebuild of the Tiger 1 costing £56k. The other two tiger 2 derivatives could supply components, but then others would demand that these should be made mobile and in the end should a museum in Great Britain be pandering to the panzer legion.

Sadly the Sherman is plastic probably one of the those built for A Bridge Too Far on a landrover chassis. Steve

It's a Russian ( ie not post war czech) T34/85 of 1944 vintage probably zavod (factory) 183 no idea on anything else but no doubt it will turn up eventually.

Not an expert on German trucks but it looks like either a kfz31 ambulance body for a 6 wheeler like a Steyr or Praga or possibly a Krupp L2H143 or a similar kfz61 radio box body on same or similar. But from the photos it could be very heavily modified in particular the rear doors look odd.

Of course the Russians have artillery ranges, there is an example elsewhere in HMVF forums showing Tigers on a range at Smolenks, at least one of which is now in a nearbye museum along with a battered Sherman which looks as though it suffered as a hesh target (so much for British secrecy). Quite a few other notable tanks exhibits at kubinka were taken and shot up on ranges (shades of Bovington) including many German afvs and possibly historic Soviet vehicles such as SU14 203mm Spg. Additionally one group of enthusiasts posted a Utube video of there attempt to find a tiger (its always is a tiger) on solvak gunnery ranges, all that showed up was T34/85 -well all that showed up on the vid. As to getting onto Russian ranges -unlikely but anyway much of historic value will have been flitched by rich russians and like Poland updated Soviet era laws on anything of either military or historic value will prohibit its export. There are however groups in both Russia and Ukraine who are happy to work with westerners in historic field research on former battlefield sites.

I Looked at the CMV magazine today and the conqueror in question is the Castlemartin Gateguard 41BA22 which was pulled off the Colchester ranges in the 1980s by a team of volunteers from IWM along with 05BB92 which was fully refurbished and swapped for an IS2 with Kubinka. 41BA22 was cosmetically restored to serve as a gateguard and was swapped for 41BA03 the former Castlemartin gateguard which is a better prospect for refurbishment as a runner. If it is now surplus as a gateguard it is likely it will be recovered by IWM. No doubt the story in CMV that it was to be targeted was just poor copy editing.

I actually thought the 4 wheel steering in Daimler scout Car Mk1 was four wheel in forward and reverse giving a turning circle of 7metres against 11.5m for those with only front wheel steering.

I know Rob Griffin tried to trace it for his book Conqueror but it had disappeared, I suspect it was one that went to Warcop and was shot out, there was certainly none by 1992 when I went to photograph the Conqueror ARV Mk1. Perhaps Bob Grundy could say if there was any sign of a gun tank in 1987, but according to Rob Griffins book there were at least five gun tank hard targets at Warcop. not unless current MOD attitiude changes. Steve

Too little information to give an informed opinion as I haven't seen the article. Is it a complete vehicle- if so where has it come from, the number of gateguards is in single figures and two I think are around Bovington and one is or was at Castlemartin and was a swap with IWM for the previous gateguard which was in better condition. further there are several complete albeit very badly damaged Conquerors still on ranges and these could be re-alocated to another range, although it is unlikely. These were (assuming no have been cut up in the last few years), SPTA 1 (possibly 2), OTA 2, Tain 2 (possibly 1) Kirkcudbright (1 possibly 2). None at Warcop or Lulworth.

Also doesn't sound logical in respect of security issues.

Great pic of an early M10 very similar to the one shown in Adrian Barrells recent restoration thread, same vee style turret complete add on armour bolts, but fitted with a rounded final drive possibly this is where it was in 1992. It left a piece of track behind when it was pulled off, there was also a section of right side plate complete with the aerial socket nearbye. Steve track 48.jpg

Morris Mk1/2 lt. recce cars are fairly thin on the ground these days and therefore a restored one or a good unrestored one will cost alot- probably at least the same as an unrestored Dingo or similar. I have to say that if the seller wants a good price then it should have been stored properly from the outset, then it would be reasonable to charge for value added- the original recovery costs, storage, rarity etc. I am quite surprised this type of scrap yard is still operating the ground seems to be dry earth and the vehicle doesn't look depoluted, doesn't the local Authority enforce EU regs? Looking at the photos I would consider scrap value is about the best that should be asked, about 2tons x current steel value. To restore it will require remanufacture of a centre section and turret, front mudguards and the engine deck as it looks badly bent, but most worrying would be the state of the chassis members and drive shafts ,in the end how much will be original. Like anything else the vendor has a right to ask whatever he likes, it is the vendee perogative to walk away - possibly the reason why its been there for over twenty years.