steveo578

Consider how much damage the thin stowage boxes suffer, compared to oil tanks stowage boxes are sturdy. Elsewhere masonary targets have been tried. some concrete block built "tanks" were used in eastern block training areas but probably only for light weapons such as MGs and RPGs. diliberate tests were run by MOD using the HESH shell from the comparatively small calibre 76mm Scorpion against a wall one round the masonary was gone (see Goerge fortys book on the Scorpion CVR(T).). Apart from that what would happen to old tanks if they were not targeted. Bob Griffin lists over 250 Chieftain tanks being smelted in his book on Chieftains it could easily be as many as 500 by now. Something I found in a scrap yard straight from the manufacturer to the scrappy, in the next skip were a pair of mine rollers (the gun in the turret was wood!) Steve ac turret.jpg

jerry.ice interesting photo, any others:) did you see anything like a Centurion ARV Mk2, as one (02ZR36) was re-alocated from Otterburn in 2001-2 but I've no idea here it went Steve

Is this a joke :shocked: I know I had a sense of humour bypass some years ago but:nono:. I've only posted what was up there some years ago as they might be of interest. As I said in my previous post these wrecks were at that time being dragged off the high range, the odd piece of tank may still exist like the front end of one of the M10s (shown in Eddy's post) but it and the churchills are little more than sheep rubbing post, for example the upside down Churchill, which has been in that position for about 20 years has hardly an intact bogie. The M10 might give up a sharp nose housing but even this has taken a hit by what looks like a HESH shell and this would almost certainly be game over for the drive train beneath. the other more intact M10s were probably brought down and shot out or scrapped. As to obtaining stuff from ranges, it like anything without obtaining permission and or change of ownership it would be theft, even in these depressed time metal has a scrap value. Anyway enjoy a few more old photos;- 1)the turreted M10c from the front with the turretless M10c behind it. 2)FV432 and Saracen 3) the back end of a Conqueror ARV 1 which prior to 1992 was on its side with it floor plates facing the firing point, it certainly looked like it had taken many hits from 30mm cannon 4) From the side window of the car a partially destroyed T34/85 5) For Cpltomo and Bazz a Ferret 4 in general firing area. All vehicles to my knowledge have been scrapped and the area where the Conqueror 432 Saracen and T34 had been is now a shooting range. If anyone has any other photos especially of the M4A1 Grizzlies put out about 1985 and any pictures of chuchill before they were beheaded I would be very interested:) Steve 17pdr M10-2.jpg FV432 and Saracen.jpg conqueror arv 1.jpg t34.jpg 00EC92.jpg

Antarmike I agree the (guidance) are primarily for the removal of vehicle deliberately abandoned by people too lazy or stupid to phone a scrappy- most still recover for scrap without charge. The Council don't normally assist a landlord in removing vehicles from private property unless there is special circumstances for example it was abandoned overnight, or abandoned by a former tenant owner and constitutes a real substancial threat of fire, polution hazzard or danger to children. Steve

I am a Barrackroom Lawyer:) I always had a copy of QRegs to hand:) but seriously I and others have said in various posts on the thread- take legal advice. With regard to Life of Grim/ Grim Busters, Local Authorities carry out legal action before clearing properties as should anyone buying a "derelict" property it may inconvenient but it is better to avoid problems. Apart from that most programme makers have to ensure they make sure releases are properly obtained as these programmes are not News programmes. It is one of the reasons that residents feel that LAs etc are not acting quickly enough, however sometimes authorities are not as pro-active as they should be, but they are damned either way, one side may say "they fail to make sufficient effort to both clear and or find owner/beneficeries," the other side is "they are wasting public money". Steve

Adrian Just to back up you point on the limitations of Duty of Care, it does not extend to acts of Third Parties, so if some-one vandalised,stole or arsoned the property there is no Duty of Care requiring the landowner to compensate the property owner, unless there is a specific contract in place, for example the landowner is acting as a storage depot and part of the "rent" is an insurance. Steve

Mike Sorry about that, bit new to thread controls I was trying to highlight your posting name as I was responding specifically to your post, I wont do it again. regards Steve

Mike- I am aware I am a bit long winded but what I said in my 2 posts on the Locked thread was in no way saying that a landowner does not has "a duty of care", what I said, giving an example, is that a landowner has legal redress in such a case to regain the “enjoyment” on his land. In the case I recounted that landowner took legal advice and was advised what action to take. Had the other party wanted to challenge it then he could have gone to court, either before or after the action, which in actuality he failed to do so, (I wonder why?) but I would be interested if you would tell me where what I recounted is at variance with the 1977 Act? As N.O.S. sensibly said Even a legal opinion is just that an opinion given by a legally qualified person but it is still an opinion until weighed by a judge or commissioner, in effect faced with this sort of situation a landowner must take legal advice. Anyone who enters into a “casual” agreement with a friend or acquaintance may be running risks with his property, there are numerous sites and organisations that people can go to obtain legal enforceable agreements, for example loan agreements. Without a properly worded, witnesses and signed agreement (and note I did not say notarised) Courts and Tribunals rarely if ever support the agreement and will rarely support the aggrieved party (possibly this is because Courts are all legal people and therefore do not look well on amateurs. There is also the matter raised by both Degsy in post #74 of the previous thread and Nick Johns post #17 on this site, that the environment agency has a finger in this pie. As I see it to comply with current regulations re storage of derelict vehicles the farmer/landowner would have to make a concrete hard standing with adequate interception drainage and may have to apply for an appropriate waste management certificate- if this is the case the landowner could reasonable apply for this expense to recouped from the other party. Regards Steve

Some photos of M10s on Warcop, these 2 M10s were on high ground to the east of November ridge, but I am sure they have gone. The rear view of the turreted photo shows that the motor unit was removed in a similar way to that used in scrap yards on M10s. At the time these photos were taken the M10 were being pulled down range and some at lest were used on the tank gunnery ranges. As shown in the photo with one in front of a Chieftain. Steve 17pdr M10.jpg turretless M10.jpg M10 and Chieftain.jpg

Couple of old feldom photos 99SP29 in daylight and Feldom Churchill 4 75 shown on the good side. Steve 99SP29.jpg pho044.jpg

there was an photo article in Military machines in June 2001 about 6 pages which may have the modified vehicle you are looking for, it certainly show a Spartan/Sturgen as a Command and control vehicle for exercises. Steve

Eddy8men Probably to get more on one post you need to size the photos to 50kb Jpeg, although <250kb Jpeg are very nice for detail:) Nice well wrecked Churchills most very early -one with applique hull and a remarkably flat floor plate Here's a photo from when tank gunnery was everyday a battered T55 with another wreck in front anyone like to hazzard a guess? It's off the A66 at appelby in cumbria, High lane which run through the site from A66 to hilton village used to be open to the public but the Range authoritites had the rights of way curtailed about 1999, the road to see the churchill is in the area closed to traffic, so its one of the places were permission is required. warcop 92.jpg Steve

Hi Adrian Just bit of steve rambling:- Possibly the E9 conversion was the reason it was not converted to Firefly,although there is some evidence of conversion of late War conversions for the US army. I would think this tank would be used for tests an E9 is a good subsitute for an E8 in loading,bridging, recovery and mobility tests, but I doubt we will live long enough to see the release of the MEE FVRDE documents and as to other establishments I doubt anyone could find REME or the Christchurch bridging establishment documents. The arrival of this tank in UK is not at all impossible the last Sherman Vs were despatched from October 1944 and that is concurent with the release of Sherman 1 remanufactured from Evansville. The only other E9 remanufacture I know of was from Montreal much later and was for M4A3 and M36. As regard other E9s photos show a number used in tests -again it replicates a E8 well. I posted a photo on "turret off at last" showing a BB tank and I wonder if the M4hybrid show is the same tank, it certainly has all the pointers small hatches -very rare,applique turret (can't see the tracks). An M4hybrid on the West coast in the fall of 1944 when trials of the BB were on-going. I am sure at least some BBs landed on Okinawa were 105mm tank with HVSS. Steve

Hi Adrian Many years ago I sent photos of T270129 to Bovington in response to an article in Track link about LINK marking which T270129 still had. According to Peter Brown it was on a contract card of a mixed batch of Sherman 1 and V in the later half of 1944. It is similar to T263482 which is a Firefly often seen in books was also a remanufactured Sherman 1 with vision slots covered with appliqué armour. Tanks like the 105mm M4 HVSS at Bovington and its sibling that was targeted at Kircudbright and the 76mm M4A2 HVSS were more likely technology samples rather than a sales pitch, as even in early 1944 the British knew once Lend lease ended there would be no more US tanks even if they wanted them, hence the concerted effort to anglicise the vehicle park with types such as Comet, Centurion, Neptune, Terrapin and even replacements for the Jeep. I don’t have copy of link marks at the moment but have a phot of the stencil (it may not still visible after burial) I suppose when the paint is stripped the original US serial might still be there. Another picture of the damage to the tank. What years of Charlie G, and LAW72 and other weapons have done, a really bad case of steel worm if this can be sorted it certainly will raise the moral of restorers everywhere. stencil.jpg T270129.jpg Regards Steve

QUOTE] Antarmike You make some interesting and valid points, It would be perfectly reasonable for the land owner to end a casual agreement at any time and demand that the other parties property is removed in a reasonable period of time, if the parties cannot agree what is reasonable then it may be necessary to involve a court. Only the two parties know what has been said, but as the vehicle owner has "enjoyed" the use of the land for 6years? and if it was without a rental agreement or lease I would imagine the court would not be regarding the land owner as unreasonable. However I do not think it would be reasonable for the land owner to unilaterally dispose of some-one elses property as this could change the matter from civil to criminal law especially in the case of a motor vehicle. Steve

Again a personal viewpoint, I tended to believe the same as antarmike until I was corrected by a friend of mine whose husband had left an early MG in wreck condition in the garage of his former rented property on the understanding with the owner that he could pay rent on the garage until such time as he could relocate it. Time passed (in excess of 15years) the owner of the property wanted to sell the property, preferably without the MG wreck in the garage but my friends husband was no where to be found (he had de-camped to North America) but was still paying the by then nominal rent yearly by post (£3 a year!) without of course a return address. By this time the owner of the house took legal advice, in brief it was classified as abandonment of property on the basis that the original agreement was moot as it is classified as an unreasonable contract and was therefore unenforceable. The property owner was required to place a legal notice in a national newspaper and advise a known relative of the owner of the vehicle of the intent to have the vehicle removed and scrapped and after a reasonable lapse of time it was scrapped. Scrapping was the only option as it would be impossible to re-register the vehicle with the DVLA without the consent of the former owner. In the last ten years I have seen a similar procedure used to dispose derelict vehicles from refurbishment properties where the last owner of the vehicle could not be found. Steve

I've posted some photos of Warcop and Feldom Churchills from a time before they were broken up on the Thread Churchill Gallery. Steve

These are the other two churchills that were on Feldom 3d. The photos show their condition in 1992. The Mk7 a late production tank with outrigger armour attachments and tropical ventilator, viewed from direction of fire (ie the worst side) rear view note even the rear mud guards were still in place. Mk4 75 with applique armour and still fitted with the 5 inch rear engine air ventilator. Both tanks still had tracks and the MkIV in particular was in fairly good condition al things considered.

Some photos of Warcop Churchill taken some years ago. First three are of a turretless Churchill leaning against a Conqueror ARV Mk1 in the vicinity of the small arms range near high lane. removed by 2000. four. Churchill Mk4 75 on high range to the east of N ridge Five same tank in the distance with a demolished M10c in the foreground. There is also a Mk7 wreck I posted previously #64 Steve

Rob Thanks for the clarification, Steve

Hi Adrian I reckoned it to be an early M4 rebuilt (remanufactured) probably at Evansville, because of the concrete I could not work out whether the hull had a full E9 spaced out suspension or just extended end connectors as fitted to M4A3E2 jumbo. The turret must have been changed during remanufacture as it was a later type without pistol port and had the re-enforced turret front- that the thickening included the gunners periscope area caused some thought- I ve never seen one like this before and of course the cupola Things must be getting desparate that this one was recovered. It is strange that this tank and the M4 Hybrid with small hatches both remanufactured none MADP vehicles have survived. regards Steve

Adrian Thanks for the info, I suppose all the old Sherman V with vison slots on STA have gone? I assume the feldom Sherman had a sharp final drive armour as I could not see any evidence of a three piece final drive when I looked at it. I suppose the turret will have to be replaced too- which is a shame in a way as the casting is a bit strange around the gunners periscope. Steve

When I was "officially" at Fledom, the retiring civilian senior range attendant said that they had previously cut up a concrete filled target with great difficulty (on what exact range and what type of vehicle was not mentioned) and could not interest anyone in removing the remaining (five) targets which were surplus as LAW 80 weapons tended to cause concrete spall which had been judged a hazzard. Steve

Sorry to get your hopes up but I think you might have miss read my post. I refered to a post #53 in Churchill gallery by RNIXARTILLERY one of his posted photos reproduced here. This tank an early-mid production Mk7 was buried in 2000-2001 along with a Sherman 1 but as stated, in his #53 thread it was exhumed in 2007? and the turret removed before it was reburied. If you want the position use Goole earth map, log in on Gayles village and find FELDOM LANE at full maginfication you will see this tank in its hole to the left of Feldom Lane and the stripped remains of the other tanks, along with the two SP Chieftain mentioned in this thread. What happened to the turret I don't know, also asked what happened to the Sherman (both are particular interest to me) but I have not heard anything more. As I mentioned the Mk4 75 prior to 1999-2000 was a viable proposition as it was largely intact and was only partially filled with concrete. churchill%20013.jpg Steve

Yep it is Feldom 3D:). From the late 1990s the plan was to clear this area and use it for general training, the first thing that went were 432s of various styles and mks and Scarcens these were probably realocated to ranges south west of Catterick garrison towards Leyburn around moor rd A6108 and Range road. Although it is possible hard targets may have been moved to a closer range such as that off Stoneman lane to the north of Feldom ranges heading towards Gayles village. Around 2001 a plan to bury the heavily concreted targets was started and a Sherman and a Churchill which were closest to the firing point were buried, (see the Churchill tank thread). In 2002 the remaining WW2 tank targets were stripped of usable parts, mainly the tracks engine covers air outlets. And later between 2002 and 2007 external metal and turrets were removed from the concrete targets. These targets were a Sherman 1, three churchills (two Mk7 and one Mk4 75) and an M10C It is surprising to me that the two chieftain types still remain, I would have thought they would have been re-alocated by now- 99SP29 was delivered without its transmission. 06sp78.jpg 06sp78 2.jpg For information there are some "abandoned" Chieftains including a metor engined trial vehicle in one of the mothballed bases in North Yorkshire. Steve