David Herbert

About 15 years ago I took a carburettor body into my local platers and asked if they could do anything. It was not at all a problem and they treated it as if it was routine. Very cheap and it came back like new. You do have to completely strip it though - ask their opinion if there are bits that can't be removed like plugs that are peened over. I would recomend them but they have gone now.

David

Last friday I purchaced two manuals and a parts list the size of a phone directory from a man in Ukraine who calls himself Magnety222. They arrived today, well packed and as described. I was very happy ! I should say that I write this only as a very satisfied customer and have no other motive.

David

Rick, I agree, your tank in the beach in S Wales is probably a Cavalier but it could be a Centaur 1. The only difference that would be visible is the extreem rear and it's a bit hard to see from this angle. The blanked off bow M/G was only because the gun mounts were in short supply and so they didn't bother with them on tanks being used for training and for conversions like Centaur Dozers that didn't need them. It does seem to have the very early track with a groove all the way across the grouser which again would point to Cavalier but it does turn up on Centaur too and is hard to be sure of in that photo anyway. Nice find but even the brass bits will be useless having been in the sea for so long.

David

Both Grizzlies and Rams used hull castings supplied from USA by General Steel. Their foundry mark (a G in a shield) appears centrally on the front of Grizzlies and on the inside of the rear overhang behind the engine bay of the Ram, also on bogie castings of modern railway carriages! See Mr Shadock's excellent website - link in the seccond post of this thread.

Grizzlies being rather behind the US production standard were never produced with 'thin' armour on each side by the ammo bins. From the start they received added 'applique' armour in those three areas ( one on the left, two on the right) in the factory as was being done in the US at the same time. However for the seccond batch of Grizzlies this 'extra' armour was cast in as gentle swellings on the actual hull casting and this could be what the Haynes book is refering to. This hull casting was not unique to Grizzlies as it shows up on US produced M4A1s occasionaly, for some reasion many of the Mine roller tanks that are based on M4A1s used that casting. It is simply a typical Sherman variation caused by suppliers having lattitude to modify details as long as they dont change the big picture. Bogie castings are a good example of this - see the above website.

David

Sorry Alistair, the M4A5 designation was reserved for Rams when it was expected that the US army would be receiving half the production of Rams. As Ram production never got to the levels anticipated and took a very long time to get going the Americans got frustrated and cancled the order leaving the Ram as Canadian / UK only and the M4A5 designation never appeared on any official paperwork that I have seen. Certainly not in official publications and a Ram builders plate Gives just "Ram I or II" and the manufacturer as Montreal locomotive works ltd. The Grizzly on the other hand was an M4A1 from the start and got its name in addition to that, in keeping with British / Canadian policy of naming everything. Grizzlies were identical to US produced M4A1s except that the master switch box was partly inherited from Ram/Sexton and they were wired from new for 19 sets rather than American radios. As US build standard advanced it took some time to soak through to Canada so Grizzlies never got the one piece front ends that Shermans got. Also the Canadians developed their own tracks (CDP) which required its own sprockets but this was totally interchangeable and was a bit like putting different wheels on a car, its still the same car. Hope this helps.

David

Andy,

Textbook job, Good handsignals, no rush, no drama. SAFE !

David

Thank you Paul,

I was trying to resist comment as there are many more experienced people than me on HMVF but you have described exactly my views on how it should be done. The first clip in this thread demonstrates why you don't try to stop and restart on the ramps or try to steer as it will just make things more exciting. Tracked vehicles will naturaly go in a straight line (assuming equal tension and wear on the tracks) and if not will always try to vear the same way so it is not hard for the man directing to predict where the vehicle will go. The driver can never see exactly where he is and should only pull the levers when told to. It is of course vital that the man directing is competent and uses hand signals that the driver understands. I was very fortunate to have learned the army system which is quite different to how many plant people seem to work, particularly when the directed vehicle is going backwards.

With reference to loading a Sherman onto a Rogers trailer, there is a problem with the man directing standing on the neck of the trailer as it is quite likely that he will be catapulted up in the air as the tank gets to the top of the ramps and the whole front of the trailer jumps two feet off the ground.I have seen that done. He is better on the back of the Diamond T. I have put a late HVSS Sherman onto a Dyson 50ton trailer (designed for Cent) and it felt like I was twenty feet in the air and well off centre. If I hadn't trusted the man directing me I would have aborted but when it settled (with my head about twelve feet from the ground) we were only about an inch off centre which was ok.

Most tanks will load in first gear at not much more than tickover so there is no need to charge the ramps, and it is so easy to line up exactly that steering on the ramps should never be needed. The key is the man directing, not the driver.

Happy loadings, David

I found these on YouTube, the seccond one is not the best quality but you will get the idea. Form your own opinion about the skill levels involved.

enjoy !

David

Must type quicker, GWT beat me to it !

David

Some break down, the engine has completely vanished. Bet the AA don't see that often !

Talking of Covenanters, I remember as a child in about 1962, there was a covenantor hull with a lot missing from it on the entrance to some open land to which the public had access, possibly an ex range. I was about 8 at the time but I can clearly remember the double skinned hull that sloped down at the back. We lived in Ilford, Essex at the time and had gone to visit "aunty June" and as it was a nice day we had to go for a walk. I don't remember it being that far from home, maybe 3/4 hour max drive, and was relatively open country. My father denies all knowledge of the trip but someone here might just remember it. (not the trip, the tank !).

David

Dan,

There can't be many people who can say they made the their own track rod ends !

Have a good Christmas

David

 

How is it not realy load bearing ? I would have thought that the forces on it (down from the springs and up from the wheels, + fore and aft forces resulting from drive and braking) were exactly the same as any other beam axle. Plus as you say the forces resulting from keeping the wheels pointing the right way. It is certainly easier and cheeper to make it straight or nearly straight if only because it is much easier to machine the ends for the wheel bearings etc if the very substantial middle bit is not way out of ballance when it is going round on the lathe. Front axles on modern trucks are dropped so that the spring seats are lower which reduces the forces on the springs and to miss the sump, not just to be pretty. Neither of these reasions appear to be relavent here (the fuel tank is further aft on the drawing but of course there might have been a very short chassis version with the tank over the axle) and the sprags would work better if they were made longer to reduce the angle with the road rather than dropping the mounting points.

 

Well done Chaindrive for finding a drawing. That will transform your search for the rest of the truck if you know what you are looking for.

 

David

Good luck finding the rest of it ! Any idea why the rear axle is lower than the wheel centres ? Was it also used on busses or fire engines where they needed the space for a gangway or water tank or pump for example ? Living in the UK it is amazing to see 100 year old metal that has been outside all its life with so little rust on it. Here the springs would probably have 1/2" of rust between each of the leaves and holes through the frame.

David

"30 mph", was he hoping it would do 60 ? :-D

David

I have driven one of the American LaFrance fire truck based 'racing cars'. It was the most scary thing I have ever driven ! The engine really only wanted to go at one speed and it didn't seem to matter which gear you engaged (no hint as to which gear was which), when you engaged the clutch it shot off with the obvious intention of killing you. There was no sign of the revs dropping, it just was suddenly doing about 40 or at least it seemed like it. This was not good as I was in quite a small yard. However it did have bags of character and really looked the part.

David

Good Grief, they did make things hard for themselves on the X type didn't they! As far as I can see Leyland were trying to remove all the vertical bending strain (from the weight of the truck) from the diff housing but still hadn't addressed the forces resulting from hitting an obstruction with one rear wheel, which could potentialy be much bigger. I think that it may have been possible to withdraw the halfshafts and remove the pieces that fill in between the diff case and the giant axle brace and then the whole diff case could be removed as an assy with the truck still standing on its wheels. That is the only reasion that I can see for such an expensive construction. I bet they didn't use it for long.

It is hard to make out but I think on this version they have made the brake mounting integral with the spring seat and the whole rotates on the axle. that way the spring is free to take the weight and also deals with the brake reaction torque, which it could easily handle. I wonder what the two lugs are for on the rear of the spring seat just below the spring ?

Thanks nz2 for those photos

David

If I had a hat I would take it off to you for having a go ! Excelent photos - just like being there but less dusty, more sleep, thanks for posting them. You could try Argentina for your next bit of extreem tank hunting... or is that too easy ?

David

Just been looking harder at the photo taken from the rear of the Leyland. Just below each rear spring at the height of the centre of the axle is what could be a brass lubricator which would point to the springs being free to rotate on the axle. That gets round the problem that I have been going on about with the front of the spring not doing much.

David

Rick,

When you posted your photo of your A10 I didn't notice that the 'torque rod' did not go straight to the front of the axle. Is it actually a Vee shape with one leg below the axle and one above it (and the same on the other side of the truck) ? If so how is it possible for one wheel to rise or fall without the other one moving in the same direction ? It would become one giant anti-roll bar.

Obviously with chain drive there is no torque on the axle except from braking (which the springs would easily cope with) or are the 'torque rods' just linked to each brake mechanism which is free to turn on the axle itself. That would enable the truck to roll relative to the axle and also both ends of the springs would do equal work which they wouldn't if the whole axle with springs rigidly fixed to it pivots around the front mounting of the torque rods.

This last is the same point that I was making about the Leyland axle which pivots around a point only just in front of the front spring mounts. If it were in line with the front spring mounts the axle could go up and down with no deflection at all of the front half of the spring and double the axle deflection on the rear half ! What does everyone else think ?

David

If the drive shaft housing acts as a torque tube one would have expected braces from the front of it to near the ends of the axle. Otherwise, if one wheel hits an obstruction there would be massive forces trying to bend the torque tube sideways where it joins the diff.. Also as the ball joint to the cross member is not far in front of the front spring mount, the front half of the spring is doing almost nothing unless the spring is free to rotate around the axle (which it might be).

I wonder how long Leyland stayed with this design and if there are any complete vehicles left. Presumably it was inherited from chain drive predecessors where the chain adjustors/tie rods and sliding springs would have worked together well.

David

Is it me or are there any photos in this thread ? ( I admit that I havn't learnt to upload them yet ! )

David

Don't forget that if you scan a realy fuzzy photo at 20 megapixies you get a realy large file size but the same low resolution as the original. As libraries tend to put digitalising photos out to contract they will have specified what resolution they want them scanned at but the originals will be very variable in quality.

You get a similar problem with engineering drawings that were microfilmed in the 60s and 70s. The originals were very varied in condition and they were often filmed all at the same settings so many were very hard to read but a record had been made so the originals (which often had not been looked at for 20 years and took up lots of space) could be dumped. Then people like us come along needing the original drawings to build a replica tank/ plane/ steam engine etc....

David

That's wading trunking. Not armour but quite flimsy sheet metal, note the rather undefined shape of the right hand lower part. There would be an extension piece clipped on the top raising it to turret hight and another similar extension on the air intake just behind the turret but these would have been ditched on landing so as not to get in the way of the gun when traversing the turret. 40 gallons of presumably fuel on the rear deck totaly unprotected is a nice touch which suggests that they wern't feeling very threatened.

David

Te He indeed ! Its realy nice to see some more photos. Clever way to stop it jumping out of gear, presumably there are detents in the gearbox and some system to stop two gears engaging at the same time as well as the sprung bits that you have just made. Any news of the front axle ?

Best wishes to you both, David :thumbsup:

The fixed fire extinguisher bottles were definitely red when new. I have removed them from range tanks with the manufacturer's transfer on top of a thin coat of red and no repainting at all. I have never seen them painted green or even white to match the rest of the interior of the tank. I think that the point was that they are pressurised and to be treated with respect and are not remotely visible from outside the tank. Doesn't it look good with all the detail bits going in but it reprisents an enormous amount of work. Nice job.

David