steveo578

Great thread/blog Adrian, There seems to be a problem that has been apparent since the update of the forum last week in that some posts are covering photos. Steve

The price is aimed at the U.S. market and is no doubt high because of its background.

Churchills both in NW Europe Campaign and Korea had a tendency to do the same, if I remember correctly the Cent also needed Swedish derived snow pegs to avoid the same problem.

I would really want a independant cost benefit analysis of whether the tiger is the raison d'ete of the popularity of Tankfest, personally I doubt it, but it could be proved by announcing a tiger run with just the tiger at the same cover price as Tankfest and see how many people turn up. Conversely as it is off the road for the 2010 Tankfest this may give an idea of how much it contributes (although other factors such as the state of the economy/weather would have to be taken into account). I doubt it is equivilent to the £44,000 quoted by Sirhc although the appeal is for £56K. Steve

Just thought I would add these photos of the Slapton M4A1 DD taken nearly 20years ago now (so further deterioration is to be expected) it would require a huge commitment to slavage one of the ex sea wrecks, probably requiring replacement of anything less than 25mm thick, so in effect a refit of everything save the hull and turret even the Volute springs are probably rusted solid. At least it could not be classed as a WMD. Steve

Take a guess, the photo says everything Sherman V hulk in the same photo -does Boington have a Sherman V 75mm? The M40 looks from its rear bogie that it may have been once been a gateguard, there's a Centaur in the background , the recovered A30 Challenger was sent to an outworker for resortation nearly a decade ago -has it returned. I could go no but I need some prosac as I'm getting depressed. Steve

I actually mentioned it indirectly in Tracked Vehicles ; What tank would you buy ; Post #24. Personally I think more effort should be made with British AFVs Steve

It the one that was on SPTA

Possibly because the ronson equipped carrier project was keep alive by Canadian interest when the British had lost interest (the carrier used in the Ronson projector trials was a CT numbered carrrier) that it took a Canadian Animal type name as a designation-as you say "small with a nasty sting", The Basiliskis possibly a ancient Greek recollection of a King or Spitting Cobra, the the supernatural power attributed to it are worrying -it is reputed to be able to destroy wheat with the heat of its breath (so dragon like fire breathing) but was also capable of self imolation which isn't so good a quality for a Flame thrower:cry:. Steve

Thanks for the correction, I was unaware that the name was unofficial, but is much more in keeping with standard UK policy of naming the a/cs and scouts after the parent company - was Dingo ever used by servicemen or is at another one of those names that became shorthand in publications or used post war like Achillies and Archer. The Dognames were actually all given to U.S. built A/Cs in Britiish service apart for the Canadian ones which were named after native animals Lynx and fox. Steve

Prior to the CVRT series there was Saladin and Saracen, but oddly enough War time British recce vehicles were named for the company that built them or had dog like conotations dingo, Dear-hound, Stag-hound etc. Steve

You're correct no heater in the Chieftain, no doubt the pencil pushers at MOD had a nice centrally heated office when they thought that one up, The Chieftain 2000 turret came off 56MS78 Steve

QUOTE=Lewis Garner;181762]The programme is pretty good, but half the time you never got to see the finished machine! Although I've never done one, you don't need to be a metal basher to know that these restorations take years, unless it is a cosmetic and de-contamination restoration. I have reservations regarding the programme, apart from historians edited to make them say things they probably never said for example it was inferred that the Comet had a 17pdr gun rather than the 77mm Vickers gun, which I am sure the historian interviewed never said. The Sherman programme was historically deficient, the tanks involved were Grizzlies -ex Canadian -ex Portuguese -brought in by Ian McGregor in the early 1980s and the two tank involved were rescued from Otterburn Training Area in 2002 after spending 17years on an ATGW range. The deficiency is that the programme was made by a Canadian Company sponsored and partial funded by Canadian Film Tax Credits yet they were incapable in doing basic research in that the tanks were actually built at Montreal which unless Québec has completely seceded since I was at primary school is still part of Canada. Steve

Couple of photos of a T34/85 at budge in 1988 Steve

Which War? WW2 GW1 or 2 or Bosina/Kosova. A number of T34/85 were brought in by A.F. Budge in the 1980s, and were common place enough for two T34/85 to be shot up a Warcop from 1987 (see Warcop thread for both tanks), so before the unification of Germany so not from that source. Of the T34 obtained during WW2 as 76mm gun tank was tested from 1943-44 (same time as the bovington K.V.) but disappreared apart for the gun, probably targeted. Other T34/85 and a SU100 were captured during the Suez intervention, T34/85 both at bovington and Shrivenham- the Shrivenham example was without armament and bovington has a SU100. Steve

There has been a flag on all day saying the Forum would be worked on tonight

I assume you mean in the 1st and 2nd Iraqi wars. In addition to the U.S. the former Soviet Union (therefore any of the now independant states and Russia itself) use D.U in calbres 115 and 125 and possibly in smaller high velocity weapons. After the Falklands War Britiain received batches of 20mm Phalank (gatling gun) D.U. ammunition for the weapons retro-fitted to major British naval vessels, this casued press consternation and a quick switch to tungsten, in the 1990s the USN discontinued 20mm D.U. for the Phalank and changed to tungsten. I don't know if the British Army used D.U. in 120mm cannons in service, however a fair number of were expended into the Irish Sea if I remember correctly from DERA Seascale, but possibly also trialed at Kirkcudbright but again into the sea not against hard targets. There are also stories of D.U. being tested elsewhere in the U.K. but are probably stories. Steve

stone It's obvious that is a T34/85 actually shadow looks more like a SU85 but the photo shows turret (even the cupola) and distinctive rear decks. Remember there is a crude magnifier in the coner of the computer screen up to 400% Steve

Busted again thanks Adrian. So does your tank have the thinned area that is not used by the westinghouse or did they just thin as necessary, Do you know if any Logansport were fitted to Sherman Vs I read that Mcleod Ross did not want it fitted to Sherman Vs and was the Westinghouse fitted in preference as the British tend to favour electric drive traverse in home built stuff and was the Westinghouse standard in Firefly Vc. Thanks again for the correction Steve

There is mention in an RAF range history at Leysdown Isle of Sheppy of first a Churchill 1 or 2 in mid 1943 and later a Sherman being set up as target for Hurricanes 2C using both 40mm S cannon and rockets, the earlier targets of trucks were being destroyed too quickly. Of course a Sherman is generic for some range personel and could mean a M3 or a Ram or even for the ignorant a tank. Earlier the Findon Churchill had been used as a training target when it was written off by a Canadian unit in a training accident- the tank had burnt out.

Jim OK this is my take on this and no doubt Adrian will be able jump in to correct any errors or none supported assumptions I make. I haven’t seen this article, so it might be unfair criticise it too much, but from your precise there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in the article. While the patch was an addition to the design, it was not fitted on the production line, turrets were brought into the assembly line with the patch already fitted by the component supplier, or in the case of rebuilds from the area where stripped down components were assessed and stored before being sent to re-assembly, there is photographic evidence of the strip down facility fitting any necessary appliqué to bring the turret or hull up to the current standard. Officially the M4 design was never closed and there were significant changes throughout the 2 years of M4 75 production on the existing lines, the U.S. production methods were flexible and advanced enough to absorb specified changes without disrupting production. The Ordnance and manufacturers were aware of the problem as soon as they decided to modify the Sherman specification by allowing two alternative traverse motors in place of the preferred Oil Gear Corp. model that was causing a bottle neck in production at a time when Sherman production was expanding. Of the two alternative traverse units the electrical Westinghouse was less powerful, slower than the Oil Gear unit and required a higher current demand than that required for a hydraulic system- it was also quite expensive in material cost and like the Logansport required some relieving of the inner face of the turret to fit. The Logansport was already in production -in use in M3 medium tanks and T17 and T17E1 armoured cars and slated for M18, it had problems, designed for a three ton turret the M4 turret was too heavy causing slow traverse and required a really good turret ring without tight spots. The fundamental problem was that in all other designs the Logansport fitted into a dedicated pocket designed into the turret wall casting from the outset. These are visible in all the M3, Stag-hound and Dear-hound armoured cars and the T70/M18 was designed with a bulge covered by a stowage box. To use the both types pockets had to be provided in the inner face of the M4s turret- therefore once these pockets were cut an appliqué patch was required, thus no Shermans with a wall thinned down to take this modification would have been sent overseas, however as some tanks were fitted with a patch over existing markings some tanks must have been retro-fitted in preparation for the substitute standard- limited standard traverse systems. This would be done as an after action possibly at a shipping depot (see photo 5) Because of the various production lines for the various types of Shermans it is very difficult to pin down the exact dates when these changes took place. The first Sherman 2 and 3s sent to Egypt in late 1942 were probably all Oilgear equipped but some comparatively early M4A1s with three piece transmission but no direct vision slots had them so at a guess the patch was fitted from August/September 1942 and redesigned re-enforced turret castings appeared on tanks from February 1943. As an aside the strain on demand for the Oil gear system was not helped by the late M3-M3A1 –A3 and M5 series light tanks which also used it –probably because the turret was too cramped for any other system. So to sum up if it doesn’t have a patch or is not re-enforced by thickening of the casting, the turret is an early model which is fitted out for an Oil Gear traverse only, what-ever the armour in the front face area is the specified 3inches at 30degrees. So no tanks with weakened armour on the front line, however this did not stop some veterans considering only applique equiped Sherman as the real deal. Steve Photos 1. Interior of the T6 showing the ideal Oil gear unit. pho1.jpg Photo 2. The Oil gear unit in a re-enforced turret Sherman (M4A1 Grizzly) pho2.jpg Photo 3. Westinghouse unit note the pocket behind the unit and pocket on the right. pho3.jpg Photo 4. The Only photo I could find of a Logansport unfortunately does not show the pocket. pho4.jpg Photo 5 A retro-fit of a Sherman with a appliqué patch over the existing Star. pho5.jpg

Possibly, the turret of a tank even in WW2 was probably 1/3 to 1/2 the value of the system, both the U.S. and the British indulged in a certain amount of rebuilding, the U.S. salvaged turrets from Shermans used in research programme and were recycled into both manufacture and rebuild programmes. The British carried out some remanufacture of Sherman tanks in the U.K., although during the European campaign there was no consistant salvage of Shermans It is significant that there was no attempt to re-use 75mm guns removed from Shermans in the Firefly programme although Churchills in North Africa had been rebuilt with 75mm guns taken from wrecked Shermans, the inference is that the 75mm guns were retained against need for replacements. The British are very similar to the Americans in their attitudes, two examples 1) When the POW flamethowers were developed for use on Okinawa and the Philipines a special order had to be sought to cut uncondemed 75mm gun barrels to manufacture this vital weapon. 2) In North Africa the British converted M3 Grants as Scorpions fitting a fixed welded box is place of the turret, only to find that the gun turret was necessary after all- so a phone call was made and the stored 37mm gun turrets were retrived from the depot and that was an obsolete type. I would have thought turret targets would be ideal as tank hard targets but there is comparatively little evidence for it, there should have been loads put out on ridges to imitate hull down tanks, just think of the types, Churchill 2pdr, Rams both types, Sherman- there should have been in excess of a thousand available. Steve

Actually your nearer than you think Vixen is a modern word derivation of the middle english word for a female fox which is Fixen.

I doubt there is a T30 in existance, they were still in use in Italy to mid 1944 by USA. As far as I am aware this type was only used by the U.S. there were 312 initally built and 108 were imediately reconverted to M3 personel carriers a further 188 were finished bringing the number actually built to 500 but minus 108 makes 392 available. The British in Italy received the M3 (1897mle armed M3) which they called the Autocar 75mm SPG, as the the French they may have received a few T30s to train with pending being issued with M8HMC which is the full tracked 75mm pack gun in an open topped turret on an modified M5 light tank hull. The M8 deployed with the French AD tasked with liberating Paris in August 1944 and the French Armoured forces did not land until well after D.Day. There may have been some use of T30 in France by U.S. Forces -possibly including units from Italy -at least one U.S. artillery unit brought T19 105mm HMCs into Southern France, For the most part French (and British) use of half tracks is quite well documented for example 8 T28s were transfered to the French in France. However just to keep your hopes alive, a T48 57mm GMC pitched up in the Indian Armoured Corps museum, which was quite a surprise, so you never know.

I think the last Europan user of 17pdr was Denmark until 1970 when M10Cs were decommisioned and from what has been said they used the ammunition in one last training bash. Pakistan and South Africa still had 17pdr in (nominal) service into the mid 1980s and Pakistan certainly had ammunition manufacture facilities. Burma had the type but information on what is realistically there is difficult to come by. Neither Iraq nor Iran had them in inventory prior the the 1980 war. I think any remaining 17pdrs were left overs from when the British left in 1949 and became museum pieces as were Churchill and Sherman tanks. Slightly off track didn't Mr Bull the guy who designed the Iraqi super gun use a modified 17pdr in his research in Canada.