Adrian Barrell

I don't make a living from restoring tanks alone. In fact, I don't restore them as such. I only make parts, repair parts and undertake repairs to hulls and turrets. We don't do blasting, painting, wiring and all the other things that make a restoration.

I do all those things for my own vehicles though.

I get a great deal of satisfaction from making parts as close to original as I can. This often means making tooling. A case in point is Sherman front wings. The originals have a large rib pressed in them and are then curved to shape. It is not possible to do this without the tooling. First I have to work out the exact design from very poor originals. I then have to figure out how to make it, design and make the tooling and then produce them.

It would be possible to just make a flat plate or weld a half-round bar on but it would not be 'right'. That's what I enjoy the most, the problem solving.

Of course, sometimes you must do a cost/ benefit analysis but some people want it right regardless (almost) of cost and that is a good thing for the MV world.

I am glad there are one or two people who are prepared to have vehicles restored from absolute wrecks, I know from doing my Sherman just how much hard work is involved.

Hi Joris,

my tagline tells what I have of my own, only the M3A1, which I am attending to at the moment, and the Cromwell are not restored.

I do have other projects here though. My M10, which I sold, is in for some repairs to the hull before the new owner restores it, we are doing a Ram 2 which involves fitting a new floor throughout as well as bulkheads and sponsons, a Sherman turret having a new bustle fitted and various other parts being made for other projects.

I will seek permission of the owners before posting pics though!

Adrian

Japanese Type 94 Te Ke tankette on the back of a USMC M4A2 in the pacific. The wooden planks were as extra armour.

Off the top of my head.... no2 is an M24 based AA tank using six .50 cals that seem to point in diverging directions....

No 4 is Skink, a Canadian modification of Grizzly 1 cruiser tank, itself a Canadian assembled M4A1 Sherman. Skink had four Polstens and never entered series production. Would have to look up the others though I have seen the pics before.

Hi Luke,

I don't own that Cromwell but I did! I restored it for display and sold it to the group who were building the memorial, I assume it is 'owned' by the trustees of the memorial association.

It is actually another Centaur dozer with an ex-range turret and tracks and new sheet metal and dummy gun. There is nothing inside it at all!

I had originally bought it as spares for mine and felt the memorial was a good use for it.

My Cromwell is patiently waiting it's turn for restoration in the back of my shed. It has an interesting history.

Delivered new as a Cromwell IV to 1st RTR in Thetford Forest in May 1944. Driven on it's tracks to Boyton for range practice, a round trip of approx. 100 miles. Transported to Trimley and prepared for wading then loaded onto an LST at Felixstowe. Landed on Arromanche on 7th June 1944 under the command of Capt. Phillip Clapperton, troop leader of 2 troop, A sqdn, 1 RTR. The tank was called Annous.

I lose track at this point, though I have corresponded with the commander of the next tank in the troop who remembers Capt Clapperton moving up to sqdn HQ when needed. Lord Carver told me Capt Clapperton was sqdn quatermaster and joked that must be why the tank had survived, he obviously looked after it!

It was converted to a Charioteer in 1951 (ish) and after serving with the TA, was sold to the Jordanian Army. The operated them for some years and modified the turret traverse using some Sherman parts all purchased from Chris Wilkinson at St Albans! Eventually it ended up being knocked out and captured by the Israelis before being brought to the UK by the Budge collection from where I purchased it in 1993.

I know all of this because it still had it's Cromwell plate fitted and all the numbers tally with the record cards at Bovington and the 1RTR order of battle for 6th June 1944.

To finish, I had thought it would be great to see if Capt. Clapperton was still around. Purely by chance, whilst clearing some old paperwork from my office, I flicked through an old sales brochure for Kings Steel at Norwich. The name rang a bell and upon checking the record cards, several Cromwells were sold to 'G King and son, Norwich', a friend of mine remembering them scrapping tanks there in the late 50s. More bizarre was finding an area sales manager for Kings was a Phillip Clapperton!

I knew a rep who used to work for Kings and the next time I saw him, asked him if he knew Phillip. He confirmed he was the right age and believed he had served in tanks. He also knew where he was living. Sadly, upon contacting Phillips daughter, he found out he had passed away three weeks earlier. I never did find out if he was the right man but it is an unusual name.

I am aware of some critiscism directed towards anyone 'converting' a Charioteer back to a Cromwell and I can understand that view. However, mine had a fair bit of damage to the turret which itself had been modified by the Jordanians and having found it's wartime history, my mind was made up. The other ex-Budge Charioteer is in better condition and is to be restored as a Jordanian vehicle.

A couple of ex-Finnish Charioteers have been 'restored' back to Cromwell but frankly not very well and are now neither one or the other. I will do mine properly.

Adrian

What are you taking this year???

Nothing as such, I will only be there for the one day. The Sherman is going as a static on someones stand but it won't be moving.

Thanks everyone! Hope to see you all at Beltring.

Looks like a Ford (son) WOT2 to me.

Thanks Jack! So far it's been a normal day, though I'm babysitting Jessica in the office while mum does some cross country with a couple of her horses. Two cards, no £10 notes and one book but the day is still young (unlike me!)

Certainly the biggest 'difference' between single and twin operation all other things being equal is assymetric operation. The loss of one engine in the push pull design is less problematical than in a conventional twin. I would guess that is what led to the development of that design. I understand that the C336 and presumably the 337 have no Vmcg and Vmca speeds. Single engine take offs are not allowed though!

My step-father served two tours in Vietnam, some as a flight engineer and some as an observer in O-2s, the military version of the C336. I took him flying a couple of years ago and we did some lowish level over the jungles of Suffolk (Rendlesham forest!) and he had some interesting memories.

Losing one engine due to ground fire was not uncommon!

RAF practice if an engine failed on take off was to cut power to the good engine and stop.

Andy

Not just the RAF. All twin engined aircraft have a single engine safety speed known as Vmcg below which it is not possible to maintain runway heading in the event of an engine failure. It's a function of torque, rudder authority and which engine is lost. Sometimes a reduction in power on the good engine can keep you out of trouble and still allow a take off. You do need an aircraft with plenty of power to start with though! Mosquito does have quite a high Vmcg but that has no relevance to this incident.

Regarding banning clips such as the Barton Mosquito, that sounds like censorship.

Adrian, thank you for posting the AAIB report into this tragic accident. Having just read this report, I can only say how sad was this lost of a highly skilled and experienced pilot due to a technical fault that no one could have been reasonably aware of. Thank you for correcting me and my most sincere apologies to the pilot, a man much braver than me.

Top man. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh....

Indeed, I believe Kermit placed it with the EAA because the climate is better for a wooden aircraft than Florida.

There are no Mosquitos currently flying though there are projects to return one to the air and some new build airframes being manufactured, one nearing completion.

6X6, rather than critisicing the pilot of RR299, perhaps you should read the AAIB report into the accident. You would find it was a loss of engine power due to a faulty carburettor. There is no suggestion the pilot was flying inappropriately.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf

A classic example of ill-informed comment?

Nice pics Jack, just realised that apart from the Tiger and T34, I've driven all of those actual tanks!

The M4A2 at a Weymouth parade some years ago, The M5A1 when I made the sandshields and the Comet a couple of times at Bovvy.

I originally restored that Sexton in 1988 and it's nice to see it still out and about.

Digging deeper into my brain, it may have been camphor I was thinking of, in which case ignore everything I posted earlier!

I have a dim memory from my childhood....... that you could make a small, self-propelled boat from a piece of balsa wood with a block of samphire pinned to the back. On contact with water, it would fizz and push the boat along. I remember it as a pellet, possibly used in cleaning clothes.

I can find no mention of this online, so I may be completely wrong but that's what first sprang to mind and at least would make some sense to have some in a tin!

Which is why she gets her MOT the bits and bobs are a few display boards, boxes and a BSA Parabike and the odd few spares. We drove her for the first year without an MOT as we had been told when we bought her she was exempt (usual things; its an ambulance built before 1960 so it'll be ok) when it came around for renewal I asked my local post office about it they said to talk to the DVLA who said "we're not sure" and put me in contact with the department that classifies vehicles who asked me a few questions and then said, sorry but you do need an MOT.

We were lucky for a year and I hate to think what would have happened if we had an accident and were proven to not have a MOT when we needed it. Not worth the risk in my opinion.

Exactly! In this day and age, it all seems to be about arse covering, which is why some people get very vague answers when they question the DVLA staff. If you know the rules and play by them, you're covered.

It is meant to be weighed unladen so depending on what ''a few bits and bobs in the back'' are, you have a definitive unladen weight for her. If you add the design payload, 3/4 of a US ton, i.e 1500 lbs, this gives you a gross weight of 3167 kg, clearly well below 3500 kg gross and therefore not exempt from test.

Degsy,if DVLA don't know their own rules who does?

Anyone who reads them.

A WC51 weighs 2.6 tons WC52 2.8 tons + its design carrying capacity 3/4ton makes both in the 3 to 3.5 ton gross weight so they need a class 7 MOT, the test requirement is the same as a class 4 but the testing station is equiped with a larger ramp to cater for the larger vehicle

I weighed my WC52 and it came out at 2.25 tonnes.

The AA gun looks like a wartime British 3.7" to me.

 

The tank is a T34/85. One question - how do you tell the difference between a Wartime produced T34 and a Post-war made one?

The easy one is to look at the glacis and toe plate join. Wartime tanks have a rounded edge and the post war production have a sharp edge such as this one. However, I can't believe the change coincides exactly with the end of the war! I suspect the rounded

edge continued for some time and it is more likely that the post war production in other countries had the sharp edge. Or the sharp edge was introduced before the wars end and continued post war. I favour the former as it is a production difference.

Having said that, more than one sharp nosed T34 owner has told me he is sure his is a wartime model. Could be though it may be rather like all the Jeeps around that landed on Omaha beach on D-Day.......

John is right. An ambulance is only 'an ambulance' from the point of registration and testing if it is only used as such.

A Dodge is only exempt from testing if it is over 3500kg gross weight and used unladen. A four wheeler Dodge is not over 3500kg gross as they only weigh 2250kg empty and have a design payload of 670kg.

As Tony points out, the rules, though very clear and specific if looked at for an individual item are sufficiantly complicated for the average DVLA employee to get easily confused.

The fact remains that in the event of a problem, you would be found to be operating illegally. Ignorance of the law is seldom much of a defence, though I would imagine the DVLAs inability to correct any errors would work in ones favour.

Lauren,

Jack is correct, it sounds like the Mine exploder, T10. An experimental one off, built on an M4A2 chassis. The front wheels were 8 feet in diameter! It weighed in at 52 tons and it's top speed was 7 mph, 2 mph whilst exploding mines.

One of the many and varied US attempts at mine clearance. The British flail was rather more successful.

Adrian

The vast majority of vehicles were sold, often for scrap, soon after the war. Comet obviously lasting for some time after and was generally sold to other countries.

Many of the range targets were put out when various establishments closed down or had a clear up. That is why there were so many German tanks and prototype or limited production vehicles on British ranges.

If only someone had saved them....!