Sherman Turret in Berkshire woods

[Deuceman]

This little piece of scrap metal sits in a wood near Newbury and has done so since WW2 when it was allegedly used for the practice placement of demolition charges by US paratroopers form the 101st - the damage up top would suggest this is probably correct?

[Rick W]

That would look nice in my garden, any details?

[Deuceman]

Rick,

 

I don't intend revealing where it is as I don't want it to be moved. It's sat there this long as a silent marker to what went on there and in my eyes it would be a great shame for it to become someone's possession.

 

I wonder how many have stumbled across it whilst walking their dogs!

 

Admittedly it will rust away one day, but that said it will still be there long after you and I!

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

[mcspool]

This little piece of scrap metal sits in a wood near Newbury and has done so since WW2 when it was allegedly used for the practice placement of demolition charges by US paratroopers form the 101st - the damage up top would suggest this is probably correct?

Interesting find. This Sherman turret has indeed had its roof blown in; the right hand side was cut away with a torch.

 

What proof is there this was a 101AB training aid?

 

Regards,

Hanno

[M.Rimmer]

I have been told about this before. I agree Neil it should stay exactly where it is,too many of these relics get hauled off "for preservation" only to vanish or turn up on evilbay:-(

 

Matt.

[mcspool]

I agree Neil it should stay exactly where it is,too many of these relics get hauled off "for preservation"

Can´t agree more, but that is exactly why an effort should be made to find out its history. There are too many relics about with false histories based on hearsay.

 

So, is this turret sitting in an area which used to be the training ground near an army camp? If so, which units were stationed in such a camp, and when?

 

Mind you, while the army used outdated tanks during WW2 for target practice, the Sherman was in use until well after WW2. Personally I think it is unlikely a Sherman (turret) was used for target practice during WW2. As I said, research has to be done to find out what it is exactly. Otherwise it could equally well serve out its days in someone´s garden as a flower pot!

 

My 2 Euro cents worth,

Hanno

[Adrian Barrell]

My part of the country, Suffolk, was used by the 79th Armoured Division for pre-invasion training in the use of specialised armour. I have found or been given various parts of tanks, mainly Churchill with varying degrees of damage.

 

Near the main area, there is a field known as tank field that, rumour has it, a Sherman (they are always Shermans) was buried when the army left in the early 50's. Following a lead, I found a small pile of scrap at the edge of a field that consisted of some Covenanter and Sherman parts. Whilst they were small and badly damaged, the finds did include a drivers hatch that is being used ion the restoration of a Sherman. The parts looked as though they were blown up rather than cut up so I suspect the area was cleared and these were the parts left.

 

However, I was recovering some parts from some targets on a range a few years ago and found evidence of the location of a Sherman that had been recently cleared. The range warden assured me it had been cut up and removed and all the evidence pointed to that. There were a few small parts laying on the ground with some concrete rubble (the targets on this range had all been filled with concrete to extend their life.)

 

Subsequently, a friend has recovered this 'scrapped' Sherman by digging it up from the range. It seems whoever cleared it found it easier to dig a hole and bury it!

[gazzaw]

For what it is worth the top hole looks like a shaped charge penetration from a beehive or nesting beehive (CD11 or other CD charges)

 

This would have to be placed and secured by some method to ensure stand-off etc was correct.

 

Gary

[woa2]

Deuceman

 

Just sent you a PM.

 

Robert Davey

[M.Rimmer]

I will email the person who told me about it several years ago,he also mentioned that it was used by the 101st A/B as a training aid.

 

If it's history and use can be proven it may be worth having a chat with your local county archaeologist with a view to getting it recorded and perhaps protected in-situ.

 

Matt.

[Deuceman]

There is no 'evidence' as such that I have which can prove 100% that it was used by the 101st.

 

They were definitely encamped in the area where this relic now sits, and spent almost 12 months in the vicinity. I was first told about it by a third party fellow enthusiast who would not reveal it's location. I then met a local man who was a teenager during the war in the area and he referred to it with regard to the 101st totally unsolicited and pointed out exactly where it was on a map. I then went and found it.

 

The evidence of some kind of charge having been placed atop, only served to corroborate his story in my eyes.

 

He has since died and my picture is about ten years old, but I doubt whether it has moved, as you'd need to fell a forest to get any moving equipment in to where it sits.

 

Obviously it could have been used by troops other than the 101st or indeed more than one unit, but overall I think who used it is largely academic. It is what it is, it is where it is, it didn't get there by accident and first person accounts referred to it.

[Maverick]

Here is another relic, this time lying around in the Sussex countryside (sorry if you have seen it before)

 

http://www.findonvillage.com/0566_the_last_tank.htm

 

after reading the first page then click on More on the tank on our downland at the bottom of the page

 

regards

[M.Rimmer]

A very interesting story. What a shame the turret was removed and is now in the hands of a collector who,it would seem from the article,won't let anyone see it. Good sense on the part of the landowner who wants the tank to stay in-situ,it has a far better chance of surviving where it is and tells a great story,one that likely would not have been told had the whole thing been removed.

[Deuceman]

Come on Mr Barrell you must know who has the turret or what happened to it?

 

Great post Maverick - very interesting

[Adrian Barrell]

Actually I don't! Mind you, I have an idea where it may be now...... That would be conjecture on my part though, so I have to say I know nothing!

 

I too like to see these things in situ but with the increase in demand for tanks, removal is almost inevitable. Churchills are not as desirable to many as Shermans though, I bet if it was the latter, it would be long gone.

[Rick W]

Here is another relic, this time lying around in the Sussex countryside (sorry if you have seen it before)

 

www.findonvillage.com/0566_the_last_tank.htm

 

after reading the first page then click on More on the tank on our downland at the bottom of the page

 

regards

I think there was an article on that in Britain at War. Better to have seen it twice than not at all!

[HotBed]

Here is another relic, this time lying around in the Sussex countryside (sorry if you have seen it before)

 

www.findonvillage.com/0566_the_last_tank.htm

 

after reading the first page then click on More on the tank on our downland at the bottom of the page

 

regards

 

great post, lovely pics,

 

thanks

[eddy8men]

hi folks

just read on another forum that the turret went to kennet valley at war trust,so good news it might be on public display where it belongs.

 

regards eddy

[steveo578]

Any photos of the front, there seems to be some junk in the mantlet hole, but does it have an applique patch.

 

As to the question of its use in WW2, Hanno what do you think happened to turrets from ARVs and Barvs and burnt out tanks, the best ones of course would be stored for a while but if for any reason the turret was faulty it would be used as a target. The Pirbright Grant was used for targeting from new as we probably at least one other and I'm sure Adrian mentioned a Sherman V being used as a special test target.

 

What bothers me about this target is the sectioned areas, its a sign of deliberate testing rather than general training which could well mean very late War or even Post War but that's conjecture

[Adrian Barrell]

 

What bothers me about this target is the sectioned areas, its a sign of deliberate testing rather than general training which could well mean very late War or even Post War but that's conjecture

 

I assumed that was someones attempt to cut it up for scrap. Though the odd square cut out behind the cupola does look more like a deliberate section.

[steveo578]

Adrian Barrell

I assumed that was someones attempt to cut it up for scrap

 

 

Good point, forgot about scrap men- I hope if I ignore them they might disappear forever!

 

It would be interesting to see the front and the gun control recess to try to get a aproximate date of manufacture.

Edited January 3, 2010 by steveo578
addition

[ILH]

Right then Chaps,

 

I'm a local archaeologist, born and raised within site of the turret. Here is the Gen:

 

1) What is it and what's it's condition?

Qv pics below taken 4 years ago with landowner's permission. Sherman MK4 turret for 75mm gun with applique armour (was led to believe this was done randomly at the factory and does not signify anything, do you know different Steveo?). Explosive damage to top, possibly two charges; one penetrating and the other closer to the personel hatch just bent things. The lifting lugs have been sheared/ shattered. There are Oxy-Acetylene cuts to right (pieces removed) and left sides as well as hole cut into left front top corner- almost certainly the scrap man as the unremoved left side is unmarked, thankfully he gave up.

 

2) Where was and is it?

It was just below the crest of Wickham Hill, in a pit from the brick and tile works that closed in 1939. It has been known about for years locally, but over the last ten years word spread and a lot of people TRESPASSED off the footpath for a look (no names, no pack-drill!). This did not make the Landowner or the Gamekeeper happy, so the Landowner gave it to the Kennet Valley At War Trust (all proper, not private hands). They recovered it last Autumn-2009 and plan to display it at Littlecote House as a memorial to the British Tankers stationed there before the US 101st ABN arrived.

 

3) Who put it there?

While the surrounding area throws up British and US stuff at the same time, this wood has only produced US (willy's trailler, GMC truck, odds and ends) so it can't be the British Tankers on Boxford Common, april 44, they were overflow from Buckleberry Common and were waterproofing their tanks with a mixture of Lime, asbestos and grease!

 

The nearest US troop billets were Gen.'Nuts' Mcauliffe, Wormstall, and D Batt 907th GFA, Wickham House, of the 101st Abn Div, but they were doing regimental and larger size live fire excercises on the big ranges of the South and South West coasts, their excercises locally were dry, so I don't believe they are responsible.

 

The men of the 435th TCG, 9th AF at USAF Stn 474 Welford are even more unlikely.

 

I believe it was the men of the 876th and 878th Airborne Engineer Aviation Battalions, IX Engineer Command, Special Combined Army With Air Force. These were forward airfield builders/ rebuilders and explosive ordnance and booby trap disposal experts. They had their own small and secret chain of command and supply and so couldn't rely on help from other units and often had to build everything themselves. Their first camp was beside Welford Park as part of Stn. 474 but they soon moved south to Sole Common and built Stn. 424 (footpath through the best bits, past water tank (not bunker) and hut bases, so no need to stray- pheasant pens and a SSSI). They built a Glider Landing Zone just west of the 5 Bells pub that later included a mine and booby trap school (cleared 3 times before farmer stopped ploughing up mines!), and a grenade and anti-tank range at the top of Welford Park to the north (recovered T30 HMC gun armour hard target). In other words explosives were their remit and everything else surrounding the turret was built by them.

 

er, Think that's everything, if not- ask!

 

cheers, Jim, RMARG.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ILH

[steveo578]

ILH

was led to believe this was done randomly at the factory and does not signify anything

 

 

It was not random, without getting too technical, the patch covered an area of the turret armour that was thinned down inside to clear alternative traverse equipment (substitute or limited standard in U.S. terminology) tank production had outrun the production of the prefered traversing equipment built by Oilgear, later production turret casting had the area externally thickened up thus relieving the need for the applique armour.

 

Nothing in sherman production was redundant, if there was a need it was done once un-necessary the production lines dispensed with it.

 

Thanks for the info and photos

 

Steve

[Adrian Barrell]

It would be easy enough to tell by looking inside whether it is ex- US or British Army.

[eddy8men]

thanks jim

 

Excellent post i'm sure i speak for all when i thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

many thanks eddy

 

p.s. anymore "stuff" lying around your kneck of the woods