Warcop range wrecks

[Toolman]

I have found some more photos taken in the mid 1980's.

We all know this is a Ferret, chap on right is Peter Constantinos who has helped me with a lot

of my projects over the years

 

Hi Bob

 

Can you see what registration that is?

 

Would you be able to send me any wreck registrations that you come across in your archive?

 

Cheers Bob

 

Matt

[Bob Grundy]

Matt

I will have a look on the original when I get it back next week from Peter in the photo.

Another Ferret Mk1/2 that has been recently purchased by a freind in Herefordshire is

00 EC 89, If you don't have it in your archive then I will get more info.

Bob

[Bob Grundy]

Here is me sitting comfortably on the remains of a Grizzly. How much would this be worth today ?.........

Remember this is 25 years ago, I was in my thirties then of course.

[ferrettkitt]

hi bob

 

can you see what registration that is?

 

Would you be able to send me any wreck registrations that you come across in your archive?

 

Cheers bob

 

matt

 

06eb39

[steveo578]

Bob Grundy

Here is me sitting comfortably on the remains of a Grizzly. How much would this be worth today ?.........

In that state only scrap value -even Eddy8men would turn his nose up at that one. Considering when purchased by the MOD they were unsaleable at £5k- about 18months ago one was offered for sale at £250k. So probably up to a factor of 10 over the value of the best property over a similar time!

 

Incidently is this a different grizzly than that shown in your photo in post#99 or is it the same one at a later date - more iron worm?

 

Steve

Edited July 24, 2010 by steveo578
addition

[Bob Grundy]

Steve

No its not the same tank, this one is in direct line of sight from Charlie High.

The other is more to the east.

Bob

[steveo578]

Thanks for that information I know the position of the eastern target- this probably means that either there were more than two grizzlies on Warcop or that my assumption that Grizzly 91 went to Warcop is wrong.

 

If anyone visits Dresden military museum this summer I would be grateful if they could see if they can identify the Grizzly at that museum (assuming it is still there!) the ID (shop) number is stamped beneath the G mark on the glacis.

 

Steve

[Bob Grundy]

I thought this was the same one; it must be another close by

Edited July 25, 2010 by Bob Grundy

[steveo578]

That's the Grizzly wreck shown in Post#99 viewed from the left front quarter, wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't under guns from the same firing point as that in post#128. Looks like Haybel Gill and the long fell in the background.

 

steve

Edited July 26, 2010 by steveo578

[airjacobs]

I couldn't agree anymore. It is almost scandalous to destroy historic vehicles in such a manner. Its disguisting.

[Adrian Barrell]

I couldn't agree anymore. It is almost scandalous to destroy historic vehicles in such a manner. Its disguisting.

 

Whilst it is a shame that so many have gone under the guns, the use of redundant tanks as targets has actually resulted in many rare vehicles being saved for restoration.

 

In most cases, they would have been scrapped long ago if not put on ranges so the nett result is probably a positive one.

[eddy8men]

adrians right about the ranges, i made it my personal mission to save some of these range wrecks and i was as annoyed as anyone else that the army was using them as targets even though they are historically interesting (well the churchills are, don't know about the shermans though:D) but if they weren't used as targets the only place you'd get to see them is in a museum as every other tank would have been scrapped with the exception of those few that could be converted to mostly agricultural uses such as the valentines and stuarts in oz.i know it sounds funny but we should be thankfull they had a use over here at least that way the average man has at least a chance of owning one . my churchill came from the anti tank ranges at catterick garrison and there's still plenty more out there that are restoreable i know of 5 wrecks that fit the bill so as you can see it was for the best in the long run.

 

eddy

[steveo578]

Adrian Barrell

In most cases, they would have been scrapped long ago if not put on ranges so the nett result is probably a positive one.

 

Totally agree, many more tanks were scrapped/smelted than ever went on the serve as range targets. After WW2 light vehicles and those of riveted construction were easily cut and reference has been made in the Archiology sub forum of large ROF cutting up surplus(new?) Carriers.

 

Consider one of my (and Eddys) favourites AFVs- the Churchill, 5500 built of which only about 750 served- and only a few were totally destroyed in service- and probably less than 250 would have been used as range targets -so what happened to the rest?

 

As to the Grizzlies of the 10 vehicles sold to MOD in 1984 as targets as far as I'm aware at the most 3 were destoyed and 2 others were badly damaged but recovered, so better than 50% saved. The others were recovered more or less intact to become museum exhibits as far a-field as New Zealand.

[Adrian Barrell]

adrians right about the ranges, i made it my personal mission to save some of these range wrecks and i was as annoyed as anyone else that the army was using them as targets even though they are historically interesting (well the churchills are, don't know about the shermans though:D)

eddy

 

Oi! Wash your mouth out......:box: :-D

[Adrian Barrell]

Consider one of my (and Eddys) favourites AFVs- the Churchill, 5500 built of which only about 750 served- and only a few were totally destroyed in service- and probably less than 250 would have been used as range targets -so what happened to the rest?

 

 

 

I'm amazed at those numbers Steve, only 750 served? When you think the Brirish Army received around 17000 Shermans.....

[eddy8men]

sorry adrian i couldn't resist it.

 

steve i can't understand why more churchills didn't get to the front it's certainly not because they didn't enter til the end of the war, can you let us know what did they do with the rest of them i know a few went to russia but that still wouldn't explain it.

i like to think that the churchill was so good when it actually went into service they realised they only needed 750 to conquer the germans and using more than that would have been unsporting

 

all the best

 

eddy

[steveo578]

Adrian Barrell

I'm amazed at those numbers Steve, only 750 served? When you think the Brirish Army received around 17000 Shermans.....

Really for all its faults the Sherman was a far better tank than the Churchill. as a back up of my previous statement the following is an extract/attachment from page 142 of Mr Churchills Tank by David Fletcher and I have no reason to dispute the figure of circa 350 in NWE -added to which there were in all 6 Regiments fighting in Italy (but many had a mixture of Shermans and Churchills) and of course the 79th AD specials- hence about 750.

 

 

 

There were of course 50 or so that went out to Oz and a regiment that got to India but none saw service, i'm not even sure they were used by India and or Pakistan during the partition war, Skinners Horse had them in 1948 but its duties were public order, so the Churchills stayed in barracks-probably might have made the average rioter think twice if they had been deployed:shocked:.

 

About 300 were also sent to Russia and were used in some of the most desparate fighting at Kursk when the majority of the 36th guards rgt heavy tanks were Churchills, but still only 35 "Mk4" tanks plus 6 KVs. they also served in the fighting into Ukraine notably liberatng Kiev itself, Moldova (Vyborg liberated by the 36th which had only 6 Churchills left replaced by 31 KVs) and finally service ending (by attrition) during the clearance of eastern Balitc states.

Churchills were used by the following " Guards Breakthough Regiments" 10th, 36th,48th,49th, 50th and the regular 82nd tank regiment.

 

eddy8men

......can you let us know what did they do with the rest of them.....

 

Excessive reserves, rebuilds sometimes a third of those produced were rebuilding or awaiting modification and training, the Churchill used by home regiments in 1942-43 were worn out twice over by 1944. David Fletchers book only give a vague idea of the number withdrawn for rebuilds. A few had been discarded some to targeting and even to recycling- there is evidence that wrecked vehicles including Churchills were taken from dumps in Eygpt and Tunisa straight to furnaces on The east coast of the USA.

 

 

 

.......they only needed 750 to conquer the germans and using more than that would have been unsporting

And a load of other vehicles the Shermans alone-parked end to end would cover the distance from London to Oxford. There was a incident in Tunisia when a German commander complained of unfairness:shocked: when Churchills overwhelmed his C/P on what the he considered an unsurmountable hill.

 

If you keep using terms like "unsporting" people will think you are an ex rupert.:cool2::cool2:

Edited August 4, 2010 by steveo578
sorting quote

[eddy8men]

thanks steve i knew you'd come up with the answer but it's still incredible to think that the british army didn't deploy all of them, (probably didn't have enough reme to keep em all rolling). i often think the churchill would have been a real war winner if they'd put the 17pdr in from the begining, i'm reading a book on churchill's in north africa and it describes a churchill being hit by 31 german a/p rounds both 50mm and 75mm and the hull wasn't penetrated, now that's impressive

 

eddy

 

ps. as for being a rupert it took me 14 years just to get to corporal

Edited August 4, 2010 by eddy8men

[steveo578]

eddy8men

.........it's still incredible to think that the british army didn't deploy all of them, (probably didn't have enough reme to keep em all rolling).

 

I think you hit on a major point with the Churchill -mobility or the lack of it was a decisive factor even more so than having a 17pdr -which was underdeveloped as far as as dual purpose weapon until the war was over. Possibly use of the Churchill as a universal tank could have helped with the shortage of Shermans -releasing Shermans back to US service but it would have been a lot of work -but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

As to the other matter -the best people are ORs :saluting:

 

Steve

[ajmac]

One hears a lot talked about the Churchills ability to take considerable of punishment.... however I think we forget that this story began in the North African campaign, by the time of Normandy the bulk of the German main guns had increased in calibre and muzzle velocity considerably (I suppose they had already come on by the end of the North African business in reality).

Although they had a low profile which must have proved useful in reducing detection and offering much less of a target than the Shermans once they were spotted, they were just as vulnerable as any other Allied armour in 1944. In Anthony Beavers' book ' Normandy' there is a quote from a Churchill crewman who says they landed in France feeling invincible but once they had inspected the knocked out Churchills already littering the area and seen the gaping holes from 88s and 75s they got back inside there vehicles a lot less confident than before!

Edited August 5, 2010 by ajmac

[fesm_ndt]

also I guess a better idea on where to shoot, pity no Churchill on the piccy

 

[ATTACH]32187[/ATTACH]

[steveo578]

ajmac

One hears a lot talked about the Churchills ability to take considerable of punishment.... however I think we forget that this story began in the North African campaign, by the time of Normandy the bulk of the German main guns had increased in calibre and muzzle velocity considerably (I suppose they had already come on by the end of the North African business in reality).

 

....... In Anthony Beavers' book ' Normandy' there is a quote from a Churchill crewman who says they landed in France feeling invincible but once they had inspected the knocked out Churchills already littering the area and seen the gaping holes from 88s and 75s they got back inside there vehicles a lot less confident than before

Last bit first I'm not overly impressed by Anthony Beavers writings -alot of it is retreads from other peoples work- and i'm pretty certain the quote about "gaping holes" is from Peter Beales book Tank Tracks- but it also appears in other Churchill bi-ogs notably that of the 7th RTR so possible could come from Col. P.N. Veale MC who if I recall correctly was commander of 7th and 9th RTR.

 

The thing that get me about tank crews at Normandy is that there seems to have been little inteligence given to them regarding the weapons and tanks they would meet in combat, in his book Peter Beale mentioned his men being stunned by a captured Tiger 1. I would have thought informing the crews of the potential of enemy AFVs would be important-not least that ignorance would cause moral to collaspe, both Tiger 1 and Panther were in British MVEE hands for a considerable time prior to Normandy. Incidently Tiger 1 and Churchill Mk1-6 had similar armour.

 

Anyway a read of Peter Beales book Tank Tracks will give a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the Churchill they certainly put up a "good show" in my opinion but then I didn't have to serve in one.

 

As regards vulnerablitiy of various tanks -at no time during WW2 were allied tanks shell proof -even the Matildas during the June 1940 Battle of France could be destroyed by German A/T weapons because failing everything else the 8.8cm Flak 18-36 was available. The same applied to British/American tanks in the North African campaign, Italy and NWE although less reliance on the 88 was required as 50 and 75mm guns were available. It was primarily A/T guns, towed and SPGs that "did for" allied arnour -not tanks.

 

Steve

[steveo578]

fesm_ndt

.......also I guess a better idea on where to shoot,

I assume the sketch is from a German WW2 manual -even allowing for superior optics I doubt specific aiming was really that practical, Alot of the aiming points are for the lower hull-generally the most difficult places to put a shell:nut:.

 

By the damage sustained by British tanks in particular the Germans had a tendancy to go for 3 round battle groupings -brief explaination to those that have not come across it, the gunner aims at the tank generally at the top of the centre mass with an educated guess of the range, fires the first round and imeditally re-loads and fires dropping range by 200 metres and again dropping another 200 metres. The result is that at least 1 round will hit the target. The British copied this system prior to introduction of ranging machine guns.

 

The effect on the target (using a churchill showing its flank to the A/T gun as an example) is a round passing close to the commanders head (if he was lucky) followed a second later by a hit squarely on the turret and again monents later a hit on the hull generally into the fuel tank or engine if the tank was still underway- if stationary then probably into the ammunition. the only chance on survival (apart from praying for divine intervention) would be to pivot turn 90 degrees to reduce the target size, if hit on the front -just pray:(

[eddy8men]

hi fella's

every weapon has pros and cons but i know if i had to face the germans in 44 i'd rather be behind a churchills armour than anything else.i know the sherman was a better overall tank but the armour is crap, probably no more than 35mm even on the front, the fact that they kept churning them out without any real armour improvement is not so much a mark against the tank but the people responsible for it's design.

another interesting thing of note with regard to the churchill in the book i'm reading(the churchill by bryan perrett) is the fact that whilst crossing a bridge 4 churchills were knocked out by german a/t and mortars but only 1 crewman was wounded which is puzzling when you consider there was 5 men in each tank, maybe the gods were on their side that day.

 

eddy

[steveo578]

Hi eddy

 

Before Adrian has a stroke:banghead: the armour of a Sherman was 95mm on the gun shield 75mm on the turret front 50mm on the turret sides and rear. the hull was 50mm front (at 56degrees) 40mm on the sides even the floor was 25mm thick under the crew.

 

Take your point that a Churchill would be a safer place to be allowing for the fact that nothing keeps an 88 or a 7.5cm KwK 42 at bay.

 

As to the Brian Perrit story I can tell you of a Churchill that had 5 killed outright and 1 badly wounded.

Steve

Edited August 5, 2010 by steveo578