ajmac Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Steve, I understood that not much else would have been damaged by the drive sprocket outer support cut, I was getting at the post repair machining accuracy once the support had been welded back into place. If the bearing is in a carrier and the hull is rough machined than it's all ok, but if the accurate machining for the bearing alignment relies compleatly on the hull it would be more tricky. On the ring side, I would imagine that the hull was machined in situe to take the ring segments, it wouldn't have been an 'as fabricated' finish, well I guess it could have been if any errors were compensated for by shimming. The Loyd has quite a number of shims around the place. Rick, Have you got the old girl back up north yet, or is it still basking in the glorious Midlands sun? :-) Edited March 25, 2011 by ajmac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 personally i'm not worried about the cut through on the final drive armour plate as it looks to be a relatively simple repair i'm just glad that dave arnold ran out of acetylene when he was cutting it off all those years ago, as i have no doubt it would have been scrapped if the final drives were missing. as for it's location, well i'm afraid it's still sitting in ian's yard down shrewsbury for the time being as the land i've bought or the workshop i'm building for it aren't ready yet. one day it'll get moved. i'd like to say in the next month but i've been saying that for the last 5 months ! eddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 ajmacIf the bearing is in a carrier and the hull is rough machined than it's all ok, but if the accurate machining for the bearing alignment relies compleatly on the hull it would be more tricky. In theory a Churchill is like most other tanks in that the main sprocket load is carried on the inner hull wall - the outer wall is a bonus and the majority of Churchills used as targets and probably many on their final journey to the scrap yard were towed without the spline spigot support in place (the removed to allow towing) -while not designed that way it probably would have no effect on the alignment of the final drive and sprocket -at least for the short term. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmac Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 That last photo is interesting, is that plate simply a cover or is it also the carrier, should say in the parts book Rick, how have you been getting on on the manuals front? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 The plate is the retaining flange of the spline spigot support which is a tapered cylindrical device that mates with the outer planet carrier of the sprocket. I'd up load a diagaram but the scanner is o/s at the moment so photos I already have on the computer will have to do "Merlin" with spline spgot support still in place -note an attempt was made to extract the spline before recovery but it was seized up! another range wreck -from a later era -whereas "Merlin" was probably driven to its doom:wow: this one was towed -there were even discarded Centurion ARV Mk2 rubber track pads that were ripped out during the operation note the outer plant carrier - it's is now out of allignment but the other side of it is well smacked by large claibre probably 5.5inch hits engine compartment of the above tank showing the damage which has displaced the sprocket planet carrier. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 steve you're gonna have to pull some strings and get me on otterburn with a gas axe one day, i reckon i could get most of the parts i need in one go. now that would be nice ! eddy ps alastair i've managed to get hold of the workshop manual and operating instructions so i won't have to guess how it all fits together. thankfully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hi Rick they probably were cut up 5 years ago.:-( Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim gray Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hey thier Eddy, Was over the museum on camp the other day took some pics for you, couple posted, lots more detail shots if you want em. Just give me a pm with your e address. The turret is reputed to have come from the D Day Avre,s. Not fantstic condition as it has a large patch on the side. It does however have its mortar Regards Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 That looks like the turret previously marked "fury" that was at Bovington for sometime -while not in good condition it is almost complete -apart for the sectioned hole -alot better than most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 hi tim thanks for posting the pics, that turret looks great to me, i've sent you a pm with my email address. it's in better shape than mine that's for sure. cheers eddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim gray Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 That looks like the turret previously marked "fury" that was at Bovington for sometime -while not in good condition it is almost complete -apart for the sectioned hole -alot better than most. I think the curator mentioned that it came from Bovy but that the rest of the vehicle was broken for spares to get thiers up and running. The turret is only located there pending space being made inside .........or potentialy being located on the top of thier other churchill. Personnally unless they can get the correct hull i would prefere to see it as a stand alone as the churchill they have is the support gun tank. From the little you can see it would appear that it has some internal fittings but not very quantifiable at the moment as the hatches have yet to have the tag welds removed and proper access gained. As you said some external fittings missing and that bloody great patch but that could be relocated subsurface to the turret and the external treated up to at least look like its cast. I will look to sending you the pics eddy, sorry for the delay but ive been up in Newcastle for a week........got to keep yer mum happy !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 tim grayI think the curator mentioned that it came from Bovy but that the rest of the vehicle was broken for spares to get thiers up and running. I'm a confused which museum you are refereing to:confused: I assume it's the RE Museum -is that correct, The Bovington Mk4 AVRE shown here which mounted the "Fury" turret had certainly gone by 1979 I can't remember it being around when I was there in the early 1970s either but could have been in the "reserve" compound -why it was broken up is unclear to me possibly the offside was incomplete and sectioned like the turret -but it seems a bit much to dispose of it, but then stranger things happened. The Bovington Mk3 Petard AVRE was only located in 1985 and recovered so it is unlikely that "Fury" was cut up for parts for that restoration -however various other churchills surrendered parts for the restoration including parts from the white Mk7 AVRE (post war version). I think Bob Grundy might be able to confirm whether any components from the erstwhile Fury were used in the Mk3 restoration. Incidently there is a possiblity that the Bovington Mk3 AVRE was named Firefly so possibly both tanks were part of the same squadron or unit/wing. The turret is only located there pending space being made inside .........or potentialy being located on the top of thier other churchill. Personnally unless they can get the correct hull i would prefere to see it as a stand alone as the churchill they have is the support gun tank. what is a support gun tank :confused: if by that is mean't a Mk4 gun tank(obviously a Mk7 gun tank wouldn't be suitable) it would be a bit OTT to convert it into a Petard tank as there is a number extant including the bovington runner whereas the number of gun tank Churchills other than Mk7 is fairly small especially considering the various marks. Of course this could change in the furture as various projects are completed when ever that may be. :undecided: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 i think it's very important for the turret to go with the correct hull as anything else would just be a lash up and to that end i'm willing to swap my immaculate mk4 avre hull for one of the museums mk4 gun tanks, preferably running but i'll settle for part restored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 eddy8men .....i'm willing to swap my immaculate mk4 avre hull...... Yes Rick the skill and effort;) -not too mention expense, so we won't mention it:whistle: necessary to make all those beautiful Charlie G an LAW impact holes in your Churchill are almost impossible to reproduce these days:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David I Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Hi All, would a "support tank" be the 95mm gunned version (Mk V?). There were two attached to the HQ of Churchill equipped Squadrons? Theres one in Australia, and a wreck somewhere in England, but I believe they are rare. Dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I don't know of a V in the UK but there is one at Overloon in The Netherlands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 i think it's very important for the turret to go with the correct hull as anything else would just be a lash up Cough, cough...... 75mm Cromwell VI.....cough, cough..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Adrian Barrell 75mm Cromwell VI.....cough, cough.... . Bit cruel :undecided: surely the hull is Mk6, the turret is Centaur so he is in a cleft stick -the Centaur turret wouldn't be quite right with a 95mm gun howitzer etc.etc... Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 i hear what you're saying adrian and to be honest i too feel it's not right to go swapping stuff around to suite your own personal tastes as these are pieces of history but some times you've just got to work with what you've got and at the moment that's a mk6 hull, a 6pdr centaur turret and hopefully a 75mm gun but it will be technically correct when complete and the data plates won't be interferred with so it will be clear for all to see what i've done and how i did it but yes i would prefer it to be original. eddy ps. thanks steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) David I Hi All,would a "support tank" be the 95mm gunned version (Mk V?). I think the support tank refered to is a 75mm gun tank and probably being RE and therefore connected to the wartime 79th AD it will be a Mk7 Crocodile, well maybe:undecided: perhaps Tim may be able to clarify. 95mm howitzer tanks are rare either Mk5 or Mk8 -there are 2 Mk8s in Australia-one re-armed with a 3inch howitzer -I don't think any Mk5 in Oz I think they were converted to AVRE (aust) when the main batch of Mk7 and Mk8 arrived. As to a wreck in the UK one of the Sennybridge Churchills was a late production type with the universal turret -but had lost its armament so could have been any type (Mk4 6pdr/Mk5, Mk5 95mm, Mk6 75mm) I don't have any photos of this tank to hand but it features in Mr Churchills Tank page 193 captioned as a Mk4 and also a really good photo in After the Battle magazine in an article on Sennybridge range, however this tank was drawn down to the Pract A/T range after the Comet and Sherman V were broken up and as much as I'm aware it too has gone the same way probably replaced by a Chieftain. The nearest to a Mk5 preserved in UK is the North Irish Horse memorial -ex Eire Army Mk6 with re-enforced hull -and even that could be a returreted remanufactured tank with a universal turret. Edited April 5, 2011 by steveo578 capitals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 i hear what you're saying adrian and to be honest i too feel it's not right to go swapping stuff around to suite your own personal tastes as these are pieces of history but some times you've just got to work with what you've got and at the moment that's a mk6 hull, a 6pdr centaur turret and hopefully a 75mm gun but it will be technically correct when complete and the data plates won't be interferred with so it will be clear for all to see what i've done and how i did it but yes i would prefer it to be original. eddy ps. thanks steve Actually, you turret is the later style as normally seen with a 75mm so more suited to a Cromwell than a Centaur though that turret is also sometimes seen on Cavalier! In your position, I would be torn between 'keeping it right' and doing as you propose. To do the former would mean modifying a turret front plate and a mantlet and making a 95mm. I did look into all of this when David owned Ians stuff as the dozer was a Centaur IV and David wanted to restore it as such. The 95 is not too bad as it was originally a 25 pdr ring fitted to a modified 3.7" AA tube, all of which is obtainable. The turret front is not too hard, though I would not want to cut a good 75mm front as yours, I have a couple of 6 pdr fronts here. The mantlet is the hardest part but not insurmountable. David did have a cradle which I don't think you have. It is certainly much easier to go the 75mm route and I wouldn't criticise you for doing so! Anyway, this is probably the wrong thread for this..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim gray Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Hi All, would a "support tank" be the 95mm gunned version (Mk V?). There were two attached to the HQ of Churchill equipped Squadrons? Theres one in Australia, and a wreck somewhere in England, but I believe they are rare. Dave. Could be right in that respect but to ensure i will grab a couple of pics this week and post em up Regards Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 tim gray.....i will grab a couple of pics this week and post em up I look forward to seeing them and will be astounded:shocked: if some-one has a Mk5 or Mk8 Churchill squirreled away:-D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 thanks for the input adrian, it's probably time to start the cromwell resto thread as it's well under way but there's just so much going on at the moment i've not got round to it yet but i will sit down tonight and put up a few pics. all the best eddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadow_wolf Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Hi Eddy, I thought I recognized you from Warrelics forum. I was one of the members that wished you all the best in your dream of getting your own tank. How is it going with the Churchill, is it in Manchester yet? With regards, Shadow Wolf aka Simon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.