So what is this out of then?

[antarmike]

 

another fun one because again I don't know the answer!

[antarmike]

But I do have a bigger picture that shows more!!

[Rick W]

Gearbox out of tank?

[antarmike]

Yes, final drive out of a tank, but which one?

[Niels v]

It looks like a centurion

[Bodge Deep]

churchill I'da thought

[Richard Farrant]

I'm thinking Cromwell..........Adrian will know for sure :confused:

[Adrian Barrell]

Churchill I would say. The side plates and the gearbox mounted compressor make me think that anyway.

[antarmike]

 

I see above the pupils there is the tail end of "General Lee", probably another instructional aid, but wasn't the Lee/Grant, the Lee with the Americans and the Grant with the British? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

Does the drive sprocket help identification? Surely this is not a Lee/Grant?

[Adrian Barrell]

It's a Churchill, the rubber rings adjacent to the sprocket rings confirms it.

 

The Lee Grant thing is just because apart from the turret, they were identical. The British Army did have some Lees. The Grant was built to British orders, not lend lease and featured a larger, flatter turret with the wireless set mounted inside. The Lee, which was also named by the British Army, had the wireless in the hull. To the US Army, the Lees were just Medium, M3.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Adrian Barrell

[Bodge Deep]

I still think Churchill

[antarmike]

I agree too simply because of the number of drive teeth on the sprocket. This would indicate very narrow links, but a lot of them, in the tracks, and the Churchill must have one of the narrowest plates of any wartime tank.

 

So why is there a sign hanging from the roof of a British Training establishment worded "General Lee" if the British had Grants?

Edited April 20, 2009 by antarmike

[Adrian Barrell]

I agree too simply because of the number of drive teeth on the sprocket. This would indicate very narrow links, but a lot of them, in the tracks, and the Churchill must have one of the narrowest plates of any wartime tank.

 

So why is there a sign hanging from the roof of a British Training establishment worded "General Lee" if the British had Grants?

 

The Churchill had very wide plates for the time but the teeth engage the links inboard from the edges, hence narrow sprockets.

 

The British Army also had Lees early on as that was all that was available. The Grant was simply the preferred model.

[antarmike]

By narrow i meanthe length of each plate ,front to back, measured along the length of the track, I know the track is wide measured across the track, ie at 90 degrees to forward motion, but i thought the actual size of the Churchill links measured front to back along the length of the track, and in the direction of motion is actually quite small. That is why the Churchill has so many plates per track, compared with other Armour. (and this is also why there are more teeth on the drive sprocket, than say a Sherman or a Grant.)

Edited April 21, 2009 by antarmike

[Adrian Barrell]

By narrow i meanthe length of each plate ,front to back, measured along the length of the track, I know the track is wide measured across the track, ie at 90 degrees to forward motion, but i thought the actual size of the Churchill links measured front to back along the length of the track, and in the direction of motion is actually quite small. That is why the Churchill has so many plates per track, compared with other Armour. (and this is also why there are more teeth on the drive sprocket, than say a Sherman or a Grant.)

 

Ah, you mean pitch! Actually, the picture you posted is misleading as the Churchill has a pitch of around 8", depending on style of track, one of the largest at the time. For example, Sherman is 6" and Crusader only 4 1/8".

 

Churchill looks smaller because the sprockets engage with every other tooth, or at least two teeth per link, there being an odd number to even out the wear. Hellcat uses the same principle, at least on the original steel track.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Adrian Barrell

[antarmike]

ingenious! Yes I assumed that there was only one tooth in each plate, Makes sense know.

Edited April 21, 2009 by antarmike