steveo578

No doubt that one was cut up.:-( Steve

Nice pictures Bob thanks for sharing, Certainly deteriorated in only a few years, possibly the one in the first photo an early model without hull cones or bolt heads may be one that is still on the Churchill line but the second one a nice Mk4 c/w 6pdr mk5 is almost certainly gone, as far as I know it wasn't on the Churchill ridge in 1992 -well not in that state, although being end on the hull details are impossible to tell- only one still with a turret at that time that I saw was a Mk7. Of course your photos may not be on the Churchill ridge. In the early 1990 some wrecks were pulled onto the tank firing target area at N ridge, there may have been some Churchill hulls behind N ridge in 1992. There was also a huge pile of scrap on one of the hard-standings near musgrave lane on the eastern side of the range, so a lot of clearance took place in the early 1990s. Eddy8man a while ago you asked about a 5inch air outlet on a Churchill, the turreted tank has one. Steve

25pounder. The exhibits are property of the Pakistani Army.

thanks Adrian- that's in keeping with many large British weapons 20pdr and 105mm is 290mm, I would imagine the 17pdr is similar looking at the recoil cylinders.. The armament pamphlets for Comet and Cromwell seem to be a bit rare.

Are you looking for Chernobyl specific isotopes or other isotopes for example those released by other causes for example radon leaching out of granite by water action? Call me a little bit cynical but the majority of the so called Chernobyl hot spots are remarkably close to other nuclear facilities notably North Wales and Cumbria, so unless isotopes are magnetic... When Chernobyl went bang one Scandinavian monitoring facility managed to detect the radioactive release, the problem is they managed to detect it about 8 hours before it happened!:confused: Steve

Actually not used used as Kangaroo, but as Sexton GPO, Canadian units often used Rams as Gun position Officers vehicles but British and other Allied and Commonwealth users used a gunless Sexton, a surviving example of one is in the Pakistani Army Museum in Rawalpindi no doubt captured from the Indian Army in 1965. The photo the Sexton GPO at Pak. Army museum is at http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/monuments/armymuseumgallery.html along with many other interesting vehicles ,I was due to go there last year to supervise a building project but it was decided that the current political situation was too unstable, so after three attempts by email the "grand stairway" got built across the panoramic window.:cry: SEXTON GPO.jpg

Thanks for that, the two photos you posted show a tank very similar to the tank I mentioned in Axvall, At Mk3 with applique on the front sections of the turret but surprisingly none on the hull. The Camoflague and B squadron markings are similar to that now on the Axval tank. MkIIIAxval.jpg

I don't know any relevant sites for MP 43-StG44 but as no one else has posted anything better this is my limited knowledge of Post War use. I heard 2 stories re eygptian MP43-StG 44 one is they are handed over by the British to the Farouk Government the 2nd is they came from yugoslavian stock -whether the Yugoslavs actually made StG44 is unclear, according to World.Guns.Ru web site they made ammunition until 1980 and their designation for the weapon inferes a captured weapon. It is likely that Eygptian ammo would have come from Yugoslavia. About five years ago photos of StG44 armed militias in the congo appeared in Army Recognition. Web site but no information was given as to the origin of the StGs - I wondered whether by this time that some may have be re-configured to use 7.62 x 39 ammo as 7.92 x 33 must have been a problem for bandit armies to purchase. Of course it is possible that the weapons were ex government obtained from any source. Does your StG have any markings - for example a Farouk regime armoury crest would be different from a Eygptian Republic mark, but would be unlikely to be remarked if already in service or stock, there is a possiblity if it was British supplied it may have a British re-manufacturer mark or Government mark, the Yugoslavian I suspect may not be remarked and may carry waffe marks. Anyway nice piece of kit, I certainly think the British missed a trick with this weapon -the Army were very enamoured by the Kurz round, personally I think either limited production or refurbishment of existing StG44 at least for the combat ready units could have avoided the serious Post War rifle errors- No4 Mk2 and the SLR. I would have liked to have a de-ac PPSH41 or PPS43 but I don't see the point under the current regs. Steve

Does anyone have a Comet TM or any documentation regarding the recoil throw of the 77mm gun fitted to the A34. I was reading Universal Tank and wondered about the problems with the Vickers 75mm HV design, at one stage it was to be fitted to both Cromwell and the A42 (heavy) Churchill MK7. Steve

Probably less of a problem when the Soviet Union was in existance, small asiatic troops could fit both tanks and APCs but post comunism things will have become a little tight. BTR 60-70 and 80 were difficult to access through the little door between wheel station 2 and 3 and sighting the 14.5mm turret MG is not so easy if your tall. The Czechs and the Poles prefered the OT64, but I was recently told that the Ukranian paras who were "big lads" used the BTR 70 or 80 for peacekeeping in the Balkans. There is an overfire problem with the BMP1 the zero elevation fire height of the weapons is about 170cm.

Any of those with ZR would be a good place to start, what's the first reg date on yours, the problem with ZR is you can't really go by the number, 00ZR** would not necessarily be older than a 01 or an 06ZR** I think the Eygptian Museum Mk1 was a runner when the Army sold off redundant AFVs in the mid 1980s although considering museum ethos they probably sold the motor off to use in a Nile barge.

A20 T34/76, before that most soviet Armour was based on foreign designs T26 based on Vickers 6tonner. BT the US T3 Christie, T18 in effect an advanced Renault FT 18. Indiginous designs such as T28- T35 seem to have been designed to impress (Kinder Shreck) so size wasn't an issue.

Very amusing:laugh: Once people know you have an interest in tanks prejudice is a general rule, I mentioned to a friend that I had to assist in moving a tank in upper Northumberland UK, they went very pale being Nov 5th, they thought I would be hooning around in an MBT pryotechnics and all. Actually I was moving a single skin oil tank to make way for a new building regs. approved tank. (ok it was big green and steel). :-D Steve

When I was in Sutherland 1992-2000 about 30 miles short of Cape Wrath at a place called Eliphin, there were no target to see as such, a number of elctronic devices, the main target area was a small island close off shore which was pounded by 500kg bombs and probably 30mm cannon. The range at RAF Tain was also used and had several interesting targets such as Conquerors 432 ferrets Other stuff left over from Fleet Air Arm days such as a Daimler A/C and several concreted Churchill Bridge layers and a M10 without a turret -which I think was recovered. I do wonder what the agender of the RCAHMS is, both historical and envirnmental grounds have been used in the recent past to "control" sites preventing access to the general (non acedemically qualified) public. Photos two Conquerors on Tain.

As a Post script to Post#5 I found the photo of the A30 ball mechanism when it was at Bovington. In addition note the small rotating rack and large traversing motor to the left. a30 ball.jpg

Thanks for that input, I wasn't aware of the problems with the AMX13/Fl12 but I'm not surprised it's far to big a gun on a small chassis even the 75mm Fl10 is probably too much, I think the designer believed the mass of the upper portion of the oscilating turret bearing on the lower section would make up for lack of structure, having said that a relatively small-"air portable" recce cum tank destroyer was really asking too much from the design, T.D.s in particular need to be robust to fire consistantly whereas a recce vehicle to be successful should fire rarely. The AMX13 is very small if you're more than 170cm tall its almost impossible to close up, far better to design a tank around 90% stature male as the U.S. do. I would still quite like an AMX13 or an EBR- the early post war french tanks have an appeal but not if you've got to use one for real. Strange you should mention the F104 Starfighter as last night I was sorting my old photos and came across photos of the RNAF F104 that crashed on Otterburn Training Area in 1983, if I remember correctly (but aircraft aren't really my thing) some at least were built or assembled by Fokker, which is often a deal clincher for Governments. regards Steve

The M50 I photographed was and probably still is at Eden Camp in Yorkshire, a former POW camp mainly for Italians now a theme park disneyesque history experience. I would imagine it is now painted with white stars and Olive drab, but I doubt anything has been done in the inside since it arrived on the ship on the humber when Budge brought it in (numbered DB5 by budge), it still had lots of junk inside such as 7.62 cal MG belt links and track links thrown into the turret.

M50 and M51 modification The Israeli M50 mantlet is shown in photo1 and the interior view shown in photo 2 note the inner section bolted to the standard mantlet bolt holes as previous mentioned by Adrian. Note the recoil throw indicator on the breach showing a throw between 300-and 350mm was acceptable beyond that a recharging of the recoil system is required. The Israeli M51 mantlet interior in three photos, the the gun is a modified F1 fitted to an AMX30 but the recoil system has more in common with the AMX13 FL12 fitted in Dutch AMX13s, the huge size of the D1504 (f1) breach is apparent note the recoil cylinder ends in the left side photo. In the second photo beneath the breach the recoil cylinders are the large green lump. This mechanism is much softer than comparative systems such as 20pdr/105mm L7A1 which have about 2/3rds the recoil stroke. It is said that when the Israelis trialed a 20pdr in a Sherman that it damaged the turret ring.

Shown are two photos of the interior of the strange A30 turret (one is the TOG 2 prototype not in A33 as in the caption), the A30 turret shows the comparatively high trunnion height allowing loading of the large 17pdr shell. The Tog photo show the bazar roller ring something akin to a Naval barbette. In addition (but not visible in this photo) a large ball bearing approx 4inches in diameter beneath the floor taking much of the recoil loading. In addition the whole turret could be raised a few tenths of an inch around this bearing by a jack to clear debris on the roller ring. In hindsight madness but it has to be remembered we have the benefit of hindsight. Third photo of an interior view of a Pershing a T26E4 trial vehicle loading a T15E2 shell into the breach showing the problem of shell length at certain elevation angles. This gun was in fact a separate loading weapon, the original T15E1 was trialed in the Wartime Super Pershing by 2AD just before the end of the War in Europe. The problem was resolved by using a fatter T54 round which in turn required a larger breach and therefore a concentric recoil system to save space- concentric systems requiring better seals- and so it goes on. Photo from Pershing by Hunnicut- really good book which may still be available having recently been re-printed.

As far as I know it doesn't run, I am fairly certain the Centurion Mk1 was a trials vehicle for various experiments (CDL springs to mind) and therefore should have relatively low milage. Consider how much stuff would have nominal milage, the Churchil Mk7 came straight from the manufacturer -never service issued, the Coventry was used as a demonstartor for STT cadres, again probably well maintained (the French managed to keep one going in Paris Garison until 1960 or there abouts -and it wasn't their kit). Possibly the Black Prince would need some work- as it may be the one with the failed transmission, the Tortoise probably was never raced and I doubt the Pershing would be difficult to bring back to life. Virtually anything in the M4 familly that is intact (so the M3 is out) could be a runner at comparatively little effort. Dare I even mention the German stuff, not that I want to give anyone down there the excuse to obsess but the Sdkfz 234/3 was used as a trial vehicle in MVEE for many years and I am pretty sure the Panther and possibly the Jagdpanther were british built and therefore have low millage unless some-one has been taking parts the keep the tiger running. Tiger engine was a Hl230 P30 which is normally a Panther or Tiger 2 engine. Fair dues the two german museums have Comets,one runner and one display -that were restored by Bovington Friends, and the German Army technical institute refurbished a M4C hybrid which was formerly at Meppen. Sadly the negative side of nazi equipment often seems to be forgotten, but it is as well to avoid politics . The Bovington Mk1 is actually a pre-production tank it was (and for all I know still may be) marked P9 T352416 03ZR70 and if it is that vehicle it did not serve as a test vehicle for CDL as I previously said (that was P8) but like P8 is significant as being one of the tanks sent to Germany in 1945 for operation sentry- the Centurion battle trial with G.A.D.

The Charrioteer had a relatively high trunnion height to overcome the limitation of the size of the turret ring which although it was larger than the Cromwell is still comparatively small 64inch as opposed to 60inch but was very heavily made . The high trunnion trick was also used in the A30 Challenger which had a 65inch ring. The primary problem with a small turret ring is the inablity of long rounds being loaded when the gun is at certain elevations- in addition larger rings are often stronger- but not always, for example the Sherman 69inch ring is not as strong as the Charioteer and some say not as strong as a Cromwells 60inch or a Churchills 54inch. The Soviet T62 got around the large ammunition problem by having the gun drop to horizontal during loading in a similar manner to some field or medium guns do. The Other types mentioned. The Israeli M50 mounted at CN N 50 gun which is about the same as a 17pdr, similar KE, slightly longer recoil throw and similar ammunition size. However the extended front of the M50 was actually un-necessary as the Indians had the same weapon in Sherman V using the original mantlet as did the Argentinian 90mm replacement of 17pdr in their M4C, which used the same recoil mechanism. Further the Israeli M51 used more or less the same recoil mechanism and orignial trunnion position for the F1 105mm gun. The small turreted 76mm gun tank M4 , the 76mm gun was designed for the original 75mm gun turret and most components apart from the barrel were similar to the 75mmm gun but with beefed up recoil cylinders, but the Armor Board considered it too cramped -which was an excuse -they did not rate the 76mm gun and were playing games with the ordnance- so the T23 turret was used instead making the VVSS M4 76 somewhat top heavy. Photos Web photo of Indian Army Sherman V with CN N 50 (AMX13 75mmgun) Two excellent photos from another HMVF thread showing the exterior and interior of a Argentinian Sherman firefly modified with a French/Beligan 90mm gun note the AMX style Slide beneath the breach, similar to that used in the Israeli M50 -51 photos of these will be posted later.(scanner problem) Steve

Possibly the British M110A2 went under Stategic arms limitation or CFE. Sales as opposed to MADP are often covered by End User Certifictates which is this case will still be covered by UK 30year secrecy regs. I know of no M110A2 that have been released with a de-mil. gun, I think at least 3 hulls have been offered for sale in UK. MADP stuff is often- but not always, cut up in accordance with specific DoD requirements before release of the remains to a civilian user. Eventually found the Rotunda M110A2 mentioned previously. Steve M110A2.jpg

Could be wrong but I think the complete unit was actually a mock up gun. According to what has been said elsewhere the U.S. gov, won't allow complete units de-miled or otherwise to be released except in exceptional circumstances like approved museums.

There is a photo of a pair of Canadian M10c arriving in Korea as part of the Canadian UN forces in 1951, they are fitted with T54E1 track. CDP seem to be fitted on MADP Afvs out of Montreal in the mid 1950s although many of the Danish M10Cs have various styles of track including T51 flat and T48 chevroned rubber, perhaps Niels V. might be able to shed light on whether different track types may have been favoured in different local conditions. The A30 'Avenger' on a Danish gunnery range is strange, according to some Afv writers as many as 230 may have been built and equipped 2 RA SPG battalions (about 40 to 96 vehicles depending on the battery requirements), however others say only 2 or 3 prototypes built and one was used for trials at SPTA until 1952. The A30 SPG was developed as a non lease lend alternative to the M10c, it is possible (but a stretch) that if the number of vehicles produced was in the region of 200, U.S. offshore purchasing may have considered them for MADP. Obviously the A30 SPG got there somehow, but stuff on ranges is complex I could be wrong that some of the Cents on Danish ranges were Canadian Army tanks made redundant in 1977- but some could be Dutch as some may be Mk7, most of the Danish Cents were cut up as scrap steel in line with redundant US offshore purchase vehicles -as Centurions were still a viable type. The Churchill 3 is also interesting, it could well have been supplied for use as a dead load to train up recovery personel pending the arrival of the Centurion, the tank looks very like that in the Axvall collection in Sweden -even to the extent of the position of the turret, the Axval tank had its turret traversed to 9 o clock for many years. Steve Cent Mk1 Eygptian.jpg

Look at MV Chatter Scrap yard relics #578 however I'm not entirely convinced with the ID more likely to be M109s if they are anything ,M107-110 hulls are much shallower but the photo does nothing to help- difficult circumstances. My photo of a M107 at the rotunda Wollich in the early 1990s the Sand coloured vehicle on the right is the collections M110A2. I have a photo of it but cannot find it at the moment. I found a 1999 Armour Rebuilds advert for a gunless M110A2 at £3.950. I am sure others would have been available at about the time. m107.jpg