steveo578

Hi Rick It was a infantry training target, piat and Boys A/T target but was not a stuck mired in abandonned tank, it was a "dead head" -which seems to be a Canadian term for a vehicle suffering a total breakdown -possibly a engine -transmission fire, it was also too bad that the rework people classed it as not worth returning to the factory for the remanufacturing programme. -abut 250 were supposed to be not worth rebuilding -but considering the tanks that were rebuilt there is no rythm or reason to the age of the tanks reworked. It may be like T30971 (the Ist production churchill which had m/s plate) that the armour was not up to the job. The Storrington tank is early c/w camel humps (the bumps on early tanks in place of the skid rails) when recovered it looked much better -it had a turret and track. It is mentioned that there is a turret in a nearbye copse but whether that is the churchills turret or is the remains of another target , who knows. Steve

I only suggested the winch being probably the only viable valuable component in the written off range aid/crane and it makes the removal of the glacis understandable -the crane-turntable would have to be removed before cutting through the superstructure roof all requiring another crane - cutting the glacis would allow the complete winch possibly including the frame (assuming it had one) to be pulled out without a crane! If they had a use for the winch it would not be necessary for its function to have the winch rollers. IMO the photos in post#1 match the photo I posted in #11 which is probably the FV209 the 1951 Vickers M/S FV200 ARV prototype I have marked in yellow the points of commonality points of commonality exhaust,aux.exhaust,hatch,roof,wheels and rollers. note the rollers on the vehicle shown in Post#1 and #11 are very different than that shown on the photo of the wreck FV219 (below) which has also had its spade removed Assuming the winch rollers were modified it could have happened any time in the long life of the FV209, which had a 10 year+ life at FVRDE and was involved in sorting problems with Fv219 and later FV222 there were numerous problems with the winch in FV219 to the extent that one of the three trial series was returned to Vickers -and was never seen again! -which is a bit like the documentation of Vickers which was handed over to Cambridge University -no doubt never to be seen again. The FV209 was also used for DD development in which it lost its rear spade and at some time it was used to develop a front spade -which later led to development of the same in the Chieftain ARV. The production FV214 had a different winch roller similar to the FV222 half of which were production line rebuilds of FV214. Steve

Pzkpfw-e Sorry to say that has already posted in post#9 Steve:-)

I don't know what a FV200 ARV weighs but the Mk2 ARV weighed 57ton -of course some prototypes like the Challnger ARV prototype were badly overweight compared to spec. So allowing that the crane cab and turntable would equal anything like winch which could have been removed from the interior through the front plate the weight will still be between 50-60tons which is a bit much for a 35ton load capacity- the rules must have been very relaxed back then. By the look of the trailer wheels the whole thing looks maxed out.

A photo of the prototype FV200 series ARV as mentioned in post#9 note the winch rollers at the rear and the shape and position of the side door in relation to the roof line is different from the FV220 ARV Mk2. Steve

What diameter are the posts on the pcb? I'm assuming the connectors are T shaped with a tube as the cross piece, the pics a little out of focus. RS component 719-6221 shur plug crimp might do the job but without the post size I can't be sure. Steve

They are Marmon Herrington Mk4(F) modified with a 6pdr a/t gun mounted in the turret in place of the normal 2pdr. These are early example without the turret extension. There is an example in Aman and was at the Martyrs Gate but could now be at the new tank museum. This is the modified version The other scouts are Canadian Lynx. Anyway wots wrong with a MH4 I'd have one like a shot great piece of kit, - and IMO totally fit for purpose as a Recce patrol vehicle. Nothing wrong with BDs either -best marino wool what more could you want:??? Steve

Hi Alastair, It's difficult to celebrate the first production of the tank as other nations will be revisionist about who invented the tank as I recounted previously, Fosters had fairly large numbers of tractors already in use from the early months of the war. Therefore I think the day to commemorate is 15th September 1916 when the British took tanks into action for the first time in history at Tiepval. The 100th Cambrai Day will be emotive -20th November 2018 - the battle itself which took place on 20th Nov. 1917 but that is more an RTR/RTC memorial day I suppose- either way I'm sure Bovy or IWM may do something funds/financial situation allowing. Steve

Got it in the first instance:cool2: Ok so can we indict his parents for having produced the moron in the first place -surely an offence of "aiding and abetting";) really stretching the point now:-D Steve

So the offence would come under construction and use then:???

Tracked AFVs pre-date little Willie by several years- little Willie was the first successful tank designed in Britain. The Mendeleev AFV in russia started about 1911 and design work continued until the economic crisis overtook Russia in late 1915 -if completed it would have weighed 170tons and carried 120mm gun and Mgs plus an armour max. of 150mm on the front face. It was a ship yard design and therefore was a landship. At the other end of the scale the Vezdekhod -(go anywhere) as small turreted tank about the size of a UC -sufficently developed that the chassis was running in december 1915- the armoured body was compeleted but was never fitted again probably due to economic disruption. Of interest the armour was a composite with a stainless steel mesh sandwiched between layers of ductile steel- so Chobham and Dorcheter armour is nothing new. In Britain the foster tank is well known -what is not apparent is little willlie would have had a turret if it had been completed as designed. There were numerous other trial vehicles -the tracked armoured tri-cycle the Killen Straight is well known less so the Pedrail which like Vezdekhod was a mono track system. The frist practical design was about 1910 by the young Australian designer/engineer Lancellot de Mole, this vehicle built as a small scale model as a bath shaped hull with a fully developed transmission and steering-both the Australian and British authorities were none-plused by the plan so it was ignored:-(. When enlisted in AIF as a young officer his letter of introduction to GoC. AIF HQ in Europe is reputed to pointedly said- "this is lt. de Mole, he is a genious and a valuable asset- find him employment where he will not be put at risk, but do not allow him to interfere with military equipment and take no notice of any hair brained mechanical schemes he may propose.":wow:. Steve

Some-one certainly had a sence of humour designing the training aid/sentry box at 1m25sec:-).

Runflat really good post -appreciate the effort involved -it made for an enjoyable evenings viewing Steve

I would have thought it would have made a reasonable hard target -the Otterburn Conqueror ARV Mk2 was abandoned as a hard target where it stood when it broke its final drive whilst crossing the range.

Yes but no wings are required for enhanced down force as the minimum weight requirement has been increased;)

Nearly doesn't count the b****** should be 1). gratefull the spade missed and 2). grateful BAOR were there to protect them ingrates:-D Steve

Variation on a theme;- when disassembling something like a axle or such like put nuts-washers-components on to a piece of wire fixed at one end, then they can go back in the right order and correct way round.

Really did you have the cowboys in? I assume this is a rather short sighted piece of C.I. legislation. For those who live in U.K. all circuits that supply sockets supplying currents up to 20Amp (13Amp Bs1363, 16amp to Bs En 60309-2) in installations inside properties and up to 32Amp outdoors must be protected by a 30mA RCD as additional protection where the circuits are used by ordinary persons (those none electrically competant), ref. Bs 7671 2008 (17th ) section 411.3.3 Additional any circuits where cables are buried in the structure less than 50mm from the surface for example buried in the walls, floors & ceilings must be earth/armoured or be protected by an RCD, ref. section 522.6.7 & 8. The "good" news for those who had installations fitted before 1-7-2008 only the supply of current for outdoor use requires a 30mA RCD -irrespective of where the supply socket is located. Of course the installation is less safe:-(. The type of Installation you describe dates back to 1981 (Bs7671 IEE Regs. 15th Edition) ideally an installation should have more than one RCD so a earth fault on one circuit will not disconnect the whole property, this covered by section 314 of the Regs and section 314 is a requirement for installations fitted after 1-7-2008. Steve

The crane tanks date back to Centurion Mk2 used at Kirkcudbright in the 1960s -until replaced by a similar model on the Chieftain. So the Centurion would pre-date this Conqueror conversion. While almost certainly some form of crane and the vehicle is certainly a ARV but looks more like the prototype FV200 series ARV rather than one of the 20 Conqueror ARV Mk2s FV222, note in particular the vertical winch cable rollers at the extreme rear -the FV222 had a pully wheel type similar to the earlier Mk1 ARV FV219. Steve

not uncommon to see shermans towing 17pdr in Italy.

Variation on that theme, make sure the air intakes are well sealed before cleaning a motor or around the motor -but remember to remove sealing material before trying to start it up -and make sure the seal can't be sucked in. Clean round spark plugs or injectors before removal- plug holes while they are out. Yes I got the earlier wicks wet n dry - over 20 years old still going strong:red: -although the orginal base (metal) is starting to rot.

Original post#1 link worked fine for me, nice shermans M15/42 tankette etc. Steve

Sell by dates on biscuits:confused: they're all gone long before that:)

I really like the MH Mk4:flowers: on milweb just haven't got £10k to spare and more importantly anywhere to work on it:embarrassed:

US tank track was a rubber bushed or bonded pin in all war service light medium and heavy tanks and as such was more advanced than anything else anywhere- it is in effect early form of live track at a time when other nations including Germany used a glorified door hinge:nut: for their tanks. US half/tracks used a re-enforced rubber band track rather than as you say lubricated bearing track -debateable which would last longer in service but I dare say the US half/track was more economic whatever the automotive trial showed Steve