Lauren Child

I've got a copy of the Conq ARV illustrated parts list, which includes the meteor engine - I'll bring it in with me next time I'm in (after the xmas shutdown). It has a mix of NSN and older domestic numbers (LV, FV, etc.), but unfortunately the numerical index in the back appears to be lacking a lot of the numbers s it might be a bit of a hunt to find things by number.

The Christmas lurgie seems to be doing the rounds, so to cheer everyone up we have proof that you can find almost anything on the Internet. Have a Merry Christmas Tank. Something went wrong...

Heya Mike! Thanks for your help with the colours on my CMP. I'm still holding out for the vintage paint company to mix up another batch of SCC15. You should post some links to your books with the paint chips - very handy indeed. TTFN Lauren

I've just taken a look in The Manual of Military Vehicles (I.C. Engined) and Tank Training Vol.1 (Training) both from 1930, and there doesn't appear to be any mention of pass lamps.

At 6ft tall I physically couldn't fit into the MT-LB drivers or gunners seats. When we were working on it I ended up with the hatch into the front (gearbox) bay open and poking my legs to the side. Needless to say, the vehicle wasn't running

Was the DD a solely British production? The numbers that Eddy has posted show that 230 were available in June, which works out around 45 per beach. Given that the US had 64 at Omaha (according to the wikipedia numbers) they must have been deployed in different numbers to different beaches.

A lot of soviet vehicles of this period seem to be designed almost as disposable items. If something major went wrong, I get the feeling the crew would have just climbed into a new one rather than fix the old one. The designs don't seem to account for anything more than basic repair access and maintenance. If I'm remembering this one correctly (I was only involved in the tail end of a resto) the top of the vehicle is a welded construction. You need to remove the bulkhead (bolts on top) and the turret, and bring the engine forward and up. Now that I come to think of it, I seem to remember the bulkheads are part welded and part bolted so it would be a real pain in the rear to remove, but I may be getting mixed up with something else. It's probably easier to work on the engine in-situ. That's why I'd recommend you look at the engine bay first, as having to traipse through the fighting compartment means that you're likely to have to re-do that afterwards. On the plus side, it's not as bad as some of the other vehicles for access

Where did you find them? I'd love a copy of the one of the two girls with the bonnet open.

Funnily enough, I just stumbled on some dodge pics as well - a scrapped WC-64KD

Remember that blue doesn't necessarily mean safe. From what I can see though, IATs are fine.

Taking a look at the 1943 MB-F1 it does appear that they may have been trying to standardise on EP oil. The gear oil is described as "90 Hypoid - universal - gear oil". The WOT manual from the same period has a stick in sheet in the front changing the nomenclature for oils, but still specifies C600, so maybe Hypoid Universal is a Canadian thing. Either way, 1943 Hypoid is probably a very different mixture from modern EP lubricants, so personally I'd stick with the straight non-EP stuff. I'm not sure whether there's any yellow metal in the gearboxes, but I figure it's not worth taking the risk.

Interestingly, the CMP manuals all say to use Hypoid 90 (which I understand is the old term for EP90). I wonder if this was just done to common supply, or whether the additives helped to combat poor quality of wartime oil?

I would have thought so. It must have been terrifying to get there, make it up onto the beach seeing so many get hit by the defending emplacements, and then realise that the supporting armour to take out those emplacements wasn't with you.

Would they have had AP for the bunkers and emplacements ?

I'm using AG90 in the CMP gear boxes (crash gearbox) and it feels very smooth on gear changes. I've not used it for long mind you, so I don't know what the longer term effect of not having the EP additives will be. I was worried about the modern additives being quite different to the older ones, especially when I started reading around the subject on some of the vintage/classic car forums.

Personally, I'm not sure I could ever imagine myself in the sort of situation these folks were in, so I'd rather steer the thread away from the rights and wrongs of how they were deployed, and leave that for those that were there and had to make those decisions. The interesting thing for me is that (if this information is correct) when they were deployed as intended they appear to have exceeded expectations, operating well despite worse environmental conditions, with the safety systems put in place appearing to work for the majority of crews that needed to rely on them. That's not the failiure that they seem to be portrayed as.

I was just reading the wikipedia article on duplex drive. It sounds like it was actually quite successful on four of the five beaches, even though the waves were significantly higher than it was designed for. Almost every website I look at has different figures on it, but if wikipedia is correct, when deployed - Sword Beach - 1 DD tank lost on the way in Gold Beach - 8 DD tanks lost on the way in. Juno Beach - 8 of 29 DD tanks launched were lost on the way in. The remaining tanks were ferried to the shore by the LCTs Utah beach - 1 DD tank lost on the way in. I know that there were terrible losses on Omaha beach (29 DD tanks launched and only 2 made it) but they were launched far beyond their intended distance in extremely bad condition. Almost every time I see them described on television the DD tanks are described in terms of failure, based on the horrific number of losses at Omaha, but I can't help wondering if that's not fair on the designers and engineers that made the DD tank. The only numbers I can find for the total available is on Omaha where 64 DD tanks were available, with the remainder of those not launched landed directly onto the beach. Assuming similar numbers were deployed on the other beaches they don't seem to have done too badly, especially considering the bad conditions, over the shorter distances they were intended for. I also hadn't realised that the tanks were fitted with breathing apparatus in-case they sunk, and that most of the crews of the sunken tanks were rescued. This directly conflicts with one documentary I've just been watching that stated most of the drivers of the lost tanks were drowned. I know that websites and TV documentaries aren't the most reliable sources of information though, so I'm wondering whether I've understood this correctly. What do folks on here think? Has anyone got some more reliable information?

The engine bay on these is really awkward. If you are planning on doing anything in there, I'd recommend you start with that. Be careful, I seem to remember there are some asbestos components with the exhaust.

Sounds cracking Can you post a photo? There's a few of us in the area - check out the local MVT that meets once a month in Huntingdon. http://www.mvt.org.uk/area_pages/huntingdon.html

Be creaful you don't end up on his naughty list. Once you are on it you see a different side to Santa. Something went wrong...

Great job. You can just imagine what a factory full of them must have looked like.

This is where I got the info on curry houses from - http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurants-g503909-Hythe_Kent_England.html

Wow, that 480 does sound like good stuff, and still reasonably strong at 100 degrees. Maybe I'll cancel those evening classes on welding

I love the lipstick Stolly

I've not seen this one posted on here. Something went wrong...