Cromwell

[steveo578]

Adrian

 

Thanks for that

 

Steve

[ajmac]

Well, it's an F type hull and there were no F type Centaurs.......

 

You can't really see in the photos (Richard, you need to be taller!) but it has a large turret ring......

 

Thanks Adrian... is the F type the version with the swing out sides to the drivers and hull gunners hatches? Probably among other things....

[steveo578]

The other consistant difference to ID the difference between a Centaur and Cromwell is the method of idler adjustment and therefore the stowage of the tool necessary.

 

A Centaur has a small cover each side just inboard of the glacis tow point, beneath this is the worm thread to adjust the idler.

 

A Cromwell with otherwise similar hull hatches has an external adjustment cam on the hull side which is adjusted by a specific large bar shaped tool about 160cm long which is always stowed on the offside plate above the air intake. As the worm gear is not fitted the 2 covers on the glacis characteristic of the Centaur are absent in the Cromwell.

 

Steve

[Richard Farrant]

You can't really see in the photos (Richard, you need to be taller!) but it has a large turret ring......

 

Hi Adrian,

 

I was not giving to many clues, but did see the serial plate on the hull, denoting it had been a Finnish Charioteer, but thought it would give the speculators something to work on :-D

 

...........actually, think I'm tall enough already, always had trouble getting into "A" vehicles

[Adrian Barrell]

Hi Adrian,

...........actually, think I'm tall enough already, always had trouble getting into "A" vehicles

 

Cor, tell about it! Sometimes I think I must be mad....:nut:

[Adrian Barrell]

Thanks Adrian... is the F type the version with the swing out sides to the drivers and hull gunners hatches? Probably among other things....

 

That's it really! Of course the different hatch made some internal changes necessary but from the outside the hatch, the lack of a front right stowage bin and the turret bins are the easy identifiers.

 

The side escape hatch came in fairly early for the co-driver but it took a little longer to introduce it for the driver. This meant that there were a lot of tanks in Normandy where the driver was often trapped inside. The crews were well aware of this prior to the invasion and were not amused.

[Adrian Barrell]

The other consistant difference to ID the difference between a Centaur and Cromwell is the method of idler adjustment and therefore the stowage of the tool necessary.

 

A Centaur has a small cover each side just inboard of the glacis tow point, beneath this is the worm thread to adjust the idler.

 

A Cromwell with otherwise similar hull hatches has an external adjustment cam on the hull side which is adjusted by a specific large bar shaped tool about 160cm long which is always stowed on the offside plate above the air intake. As the worm gear is not fitted the 2 covers on the glacis characteristic of the Centaur are absent in the Cromwell.

 

Steve

 

Centaurs could be converted to the later style of adjuster, certainly all the Dozers were, probably as part of the Dozer conversion. They still retained the little access cover though.

[steveo578]

Adrian

Thanks for that clarification, logical I suppose as I assume the Cromwell type was stronger (hopefully) fitting to Bulldozer tanks would be possibly a good idea to relieve stress-weaknesses.

 

Another thought I've had -the A27 turret had a beautifully machined barrel extraction port in the rear of the turret -was it enlarged for 95mm tanks? -which seems to be the case in the Churchill which had a very crude bolt on lump.

[Adrian Barrell]

Adrian

Thanks for that clarification, logical I suppose as I assume the Cromwell type was stronger (hopefully) fitting to Bulldozer tanks would be possibly a good idea to relieve stress-weaknesses.

 

Another thought I've had -the A27 turret had a beautifully machined barrel extraction port in the rear of the turret -was it enlarged for 95mm tanks? -which seems to be the case in the Churchill which had a very crude bolt on lump.

 

No, the port was the same for all. The 95mm tube was the same diameter at the breech end as the 6pr/75mm and they shared the same cradle. It was larger at the exposed portion than the other guns but it was removed in the same way.

 

For those who don't know, the 95mm was a bit of a lash up using a 25 pr breech assembly mated to a shortened 3.7" AA tube. It worked well though!

[Adrian Barrell]

Adrian

Thanks for that clarification, logical I suppose as I assume the Cromwell type was stronger (hopefully) fitting to Bulldozer tanks would be possibly a good idea to relieve stress-weaknesses.

 

 

 

I think it was just a cheaper, simpler and better system. Common sense prevailed eventually!

 

The Dozers did have steel tyres for the idlers, the rubber not lasting very long in the rubble.

[steveo578]

Adrian Barrell

For those who don't know, the 95mm was a bit of a lash up using a 25 pr breech assembly mated to a shortened 3.7" AA tube. It worked well though!

 

Debatable - the 95mm howitzer was designed to go on any mount that could take a 6pdr -in the churchill it proved impossible to get it to work without altering the turret front -which delayed production. -Mk5 became a universal design for 95mm, 6pdr and 75mm but the 95mm could not retro-fit in a standard Mk4 or a Mk3 turret- and the Mk8 was an entirely different type of turret from the mk7.

 

As a towed weapon it was to replace the old 3.7in mountain howitzer of 1915. It was fitted to a 6pdr A/T gun slide on the Steven Carriage -which was like a lightweight 25pdr carriage, but it was a total failure and the production run was scrapped.

 

The guns themselves were varied the Mk1 and Mk4 was the tank version with fixed ammunition. The mk2 (towed equipment) was separate loading. The Mk3 may have been the result of a need to mop up the unused towed equipment components was used in the Alecto 95mm SPG it had the same tube length as the tank gun but used the separate charge ammunition of the towed weapon.

 

As to whether it worked in a tank - dispersion was often a problem -NIH in Italy loved them in Churchills but in NWE there was some concern about them to the extent that some Cromwell units used them almost exclusively for smoke rounds -relying heavily on the Besa for offensive use. By the end of WW2 the Tank board were talking of going American with the 105mm howitzer M4 for future designs. Although with the end of the war in sight the tank regiments still using Cromwell and Comets had to suck it up -as nothing new would be forthcoming -British or American.

 

Steve

[ajmac]

Interesting Steve.... was the 'lump' on the end of the 95mm barrel a counter weight for the breech due to the short barrel length?

[steveo578]

ajmac

.... was the 'lump' on the end of the 95mm barrel a counter weight for the breech due to the short barrel length?

 

Yes but its strange that the Alecto 95mm SPG didn't have one.

 

I did a essay on armour in Focus Churchill tank on the 95mm gun which might be of interest to you

 

Steve

[Adrian Barrell]

Yes but its strange that the Alecto 95mm SPG didn't have one.

 

Steve

 

Not strange at all, the trunnions are closer to the breech on Alecto.

[steveo578]

Adrian Barrell

the trunnions are closer to the breech on Alecto.

 

Yes of course they are, the mount in Alecto is like a minature version of an 17pdr Valentine -not the front mounted mantlet as in the tanks.:blush:

[Adrian Barrell]

Yes of course they are, the mount in Alecto is like a minature version of an 17pdr Valentine -not the front mounted mantlet as in the tanks.:blush:

 

I had to check the manuals before I posted.......

[steveo578]

Your lucky I had to look for the Wheels and Tracks 15 centre spread -not that I had any doubt in what you said -brain has been in idle mode for the last week or so- number of BrainF**** increasing exponentialy.

 

Steve