antarmike

Overall length from back of rear tyre to front of front tyre is 8' 4" plus 3' 7" . (3' 7" being the overall height of a part worn Michelin XL 11.00 x 20 tyre.) Plan for a length of 12' 1" though if tyre are very worm you might squeeze one on 12' 0" bed trailer. Drive it home, they are comfortable at 35-40 MPH ! Mike

Empty weight is a tad over 3 tonnes but the class of vehicle you can drive on a licence depends on its theoretical maximum gross weight which I believe is 7.5 Tonnes (with trailer) for an RB44.

Must also depend on its rated towed load. All I have found is it weights 3050kg empty 5250kg loaded and can tow a further 2250kg giving a total train weight of 7500kg Can anyone confirm these figures. Does the RB44 have air braking connections? Without these it cannot legally tow such a trailer.

Width is correct but 6' 1" does not include any bulge in the tyre sidewall. It might be worth having some sort of tyre inflater with you. There should be a pointer ahead of the offside rear track rod. This is lined up with a painted white line on the track rod when wheels are straight ahead. (on my vehicle) but manual also says pointer lines up with end of track rod tube and gives an illustration that does not show the ball end lock nut so it is not immediately obvious whether the pointer lines with the rod end or the outside of the lock nut. You should be adding the diameter of the tyre, not the diameter of the rim, to the wheelbase to work out Trailer bed length required. Adding 20" is only adding half the rim size fore and half the rim size aft of the wheelbase, ( but this 20" is measured at the base of the tyre bead,! The OD of rim itself isactually nearer 24") At 10 feet exactly you are short by twice the distance the tyre projects forward or back from the rim's well. Too tired tonite but tomorrow I can go and measure at realistic length from front of front tyre to rear of rear tyre, but it is a lot more than your estimate...Mike Check weight capacity for Ifor Williams trailer. If it is a two axle Ifor it will I suspect be overloaded. The three axle Ifor may carry an Eager Beaver. Unladen weight of an E.B. is 6083Lbs or 2759Kgs (2.759 Tonnes), It will of course be more than this if it has the Standard late pattern Army Roll Cage fitted.

The pedal box on the Mk2 was protected by Micro switches and an electric solenoid valve. If these are fitted and operational they prevent the destruction of the pedal box. Pedal box could only be flattened on the Prototype / Mark 1 vehicles and those Mk2 vehicles were someone had interfered with or removed those micros switches and the Solenoid valve./

Above is hydraulic circuit for Prototypes and Mk1 E.B's Mk2 is slightly different. I have just put this one up at the moment because I am knacked having driven down from Scotland in atrocious winds and have only just got home. Tomorrow, if I get a chance i will scan some Hydraulic stuff for the production Mk2 E.B.s but I will have to dig out the technical manuals and they are not to hand tonite. Mike

O853 5544 was H4951811 becoming 05 YZ 64, beyond that I have no informatiuon.

Here is a table from an archival document with breakdown tank and SP guns losses of the 1st Belorussian Front by type in 1944 (TsAMO f. 233, op. 2309, d. 165, l. 224; by courtesy of Dmitry Shein) http://i057.radikal.ru/1103/e1/235be69b7a8c.jpg According to the table out of 2235 tanks and SPguns lost from March to December 1944, only 5 were lost to panzerfausts, 31 to air bombs, 15 to aircraft cannons, 42 to mines. The most part of the it others were destroyed by guns (including tank and SP guns). As the text of the report says according to a sample study about 90% of all heavy and 77% of all medium tanks losses were caused by 75-88-mm guns. Then it's commented that although panzerfausts were employed in giant numbers, their overall effectiveness was not very high: in operation "Bagration" only 3% of losses were caused by this type of weapon, and up to 9% (after stabilization of the front). The report explains it saying that successful hits from a close distance required too much guts. Mines were a more significant factor than it can appear from irrevocable losses statistics, but in most cases the damage inflicted by them was repairable. To give another example of distribution of losses, tank and SP-guns of the 3rd Guards Tank Army from 12 January to 12 March 1945 (Vistula-Oder and Silesia operations) were: damaged in combat - 1349 by artillery and panzerfausts, 55 by mines, 75 by aircraft total write-offs - 530 to artillery and panzerfausts, 13 to mines, 13 to aircraft. Numbers are from the history of the army by Shein. One can see that mines and airplanes were of relatively small importance. Or another example 15 April to 2 May 1945 (Berlin operation) losses of the same army were (all losses/write-offs): to artillery fire - 266/119 mines - 17/5 aircraft - 1/0 panzerfausts - 129/76 technical losses - 87/0 bogged down - 3/0 This table is more informative, the short conclusion is that despite fighting in urban environment, guns accounted for more lost tanks than panzerfausts. Yet the panzerfausts were more deadly: the percentage of write-offs (irreparable) was 59% as opposed to 45%in case of guns.

According to published figures, Germans claimed to have destroyed 12 541 tanks on Eastern Front between January and April 1944. Of those, 8130 are listed as "cause known", and of these: -262 by Faustpatrone/Panzerfaust -88 by Panzerschrek -67 by Hafthohlladung (ie. magnetic shaped charge AT grenade) -22 by hand grenade -78 by Tellermine Might have been somewhat different during last months of the war, when there were lots more urban combat. Statistics show that most tanks were killed by anti-tank guns, followed by other tanks and finally infantry. Despite the millions of Panzerfausts and other hand-held infantry AT weapons produced by Germany during WWII, the German authorities only awarded 18,500 silver tank destruction badges (destruction of a tank by a hand-held weapon) and 400 gold tank destruction badges (destruction of 5 tanks by a hand-held weapon). That's in any theatre.

Quiote Wiki" In the Battle of Normandy, only 6% of British tank losses were from Panzerfaust fire, despite the close-range combat in the Bocage landscape. However, the threat from the Panzerfaust forced tank forces to wait for infantry support before advancing. The portion of British tanks destroyed by Panzerfausts later rose to 34%, a rise probably explained by the lack of German anti-tank guns late in the war and also the terrain where the fighting took place. In urban combat in the late war in eastern Germany about 70% of tanks destroyed were hit by Panzerfausts, or Panzerschrecks. The Soviet forces responded by installing spaced armour on their tanks from early 1945 onwards, despite it being easily removed by exploding shells or Panzerfaust hits. Each tank company was also assigned a platoon of infantry to protect them from infantry-wielded anti-tank weapons.

Does anyone think it is just Art? Could it be converted from a Gulf War Inverted V , someone seeing the possibility of building some pyramids from that base?

Found on door of a 101, Can anyone suggest the unit that may have used this (pyramids) mark?

Yes but it looks very possible to restore it..........

but the steering seems just as heavy as the real thing.....

Nah! A series one 80" is far more fun to drive......

I have some glazing to put in a wooden greenhouse, does your big hammer fit glazing sprigs and can I borrow it?

Have a good one Steve....

Agreed if the spanner used is sloppy and liable to slip off or round of corners on the nut but equally frustrating in the case stated above, trying to use a 7/16" A/F spanner on a 1/4" BSF nut, the frustration in having to force on an undersized spanner that has no built in allowance to allow you to easily slip the spanner on with a sensible working clearance. This only makes the job harder.

You need this U boat spanner then...... A truly digital spanner.....(although from memory the swing out shims are 0.5mm each)

Whitworth spanners can be bought new, I use autojumble/ carboot quite a lot, but a lot of my Whitworth stuff is bought brand spanking new.... To quote this website and to explain why I think it is flawed... Quote http://WWW.gomog.com "...For example, a 3/16 BSW spanner, a 1/4 BSF spanner, and a 7/16 AF spanner are EXACTLY the same size." Unquote Untrue... 7/16 A/F is 0.4375" 3/16 BSW/ 1/4 BSF is 0.445" That is certainly not" EXACTLY the same size" Can I offer this site as a better/ more reliable guide to those who may come across Whitworth and BSF threads. http://www.baconsdozen.co.uk/tools/conversion%20charts.htm I have no connection with this company!

I may be a purist but I like to use the correct spanner, not something close. I personally don't like the approximations this site recommends, but that is just me.....

PM sent

I am asking on behalf of a friend who has just bought a Witham's RB44. The front brakes appear to him to be self adjusting, there being no obvious adjuster on the back plate, However one brake drags (seriously) and he is unsure how the brakes are adjusted. Has anyone got any advice I can pass on to him? Thanks Mike

Nice picture but they are two Explorers, not Pioneers.... The clue is in the driven front axle. That big differential, planetary reduction system, in place of the skinny, steering only, pioneer front axle means the Explorer's radiator has to sit a lot higher than in a Pioneer....Glazed tops on the doors are another pointer....And Air braking connections at the front of the vehicle.....And a different shaped cab and windscreens....And note difference in engine air cleaner.... And having a Gardner 6LW rather than the big petrol engine in the Explorer, meant the Pioneer could get by with a lot smaller radiator....Pioneer front winch rollers are shorter, and are not open at the top as are the Explorer version...Rear view mirrors mount on door on the Explorer and move with the door, but pioneer does not have door tops so mirrors fixed to the windscreen framing stay in place when door is opened.......Explorer front towing eye spring hinges on the right, on the pioneer it swings from the left hand side....see also different mounting points for Headlights....Explorer front mudguards fix to a tubular frame, on the Pioneer they fix to a rectangular (top hat) section sheet steel pressing....On the Pioneer the Fuel tank is exposed, on the Explorer it is enclosed in a rectangular cover.... Draw a line from the top of the front tyres to the top of the rear tyres, Explorer cab is well above this line, Pioneer cab very noticeably below it.....