Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#4037536 - 11/18/14 02:38 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
#7 looks Japanese. I'll work on that.*Type 95 HA-GO* ?

#8 is a Cruiser Mk V: Covenanter.I recognise it from World of Tanks. In fact my WoT name is British Cruiser biggrin

Last edited by Chucky; 11/18/14 04:23 PM. Reason: added answer

EV's are the Devils matchbox.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4038050 - 11/19/14 08:46 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
Correct! biggrin

#7 is indeed a Type 95 'Ha-Go', a light tank used by the Imperial Japanese Army in combat operations during the second Sino-Japanese war, at Nomonhan against the Soviet Union, and in WW2. The Type 95 was produced in 1935 (year 2595 in the Japanese Imperial Calendar, hence the ’95’ in the title) and remained in front line service throughout the war.

Like the American M3 Stuart, it was not designed to fight other tanks. It weighed only 7.5 tons and had a crew of 3. Only the commander was seated in the turret, hence he was responsible for observation, loading, aiming, firing the main gun, as well as decision-making and commanding the crew. The hand-operated turret was small and extremely cramped.

The primary armament of the most produced version was a Type 98 37mm gun firing high-explosive and armour-piercing rounds. For the latter, muzzle velocity was 675–700 m/s, and the armour penetration was 25mm at a distance of 500m – in other words pretty hopeless against other armour! Similarly the thin armour of the Type 95 made it very vulnerable; Allied forces soon realized that standard infantry weapons were capable of penetrating the minimal armour around the engine block, and even its thickest armour could not withstand anything above rifle calibre.

The exhibit at Bovington is a tank from 14th Sensha Rentai (Tank Regiment), 3rd Sensha Shidan (Tank Division). It was captured in Malaya and examined in Calcutta before being sent to Britain.

Here's a few more photographs of it:





Also correct on #8! The Covenanter was a revolutionary new design of cruiser tank dating from 1939. It was built under the control of the London Midland and Scottish Railway (why?!), and was designed to be of all welded construction, with many aluminium components, a special low-profile engine and the new Merritt-Brown transmission. Unfortunately by the time it entered production many things had changed. Riveting replaced welding, armour thickness was increased and aluminium could not be used (it was now a priority material for the RAF). This all conspired to increase the weight. To make matters worse the selected transmission was not available and the tanks suffered dreadful cooling problems through having the engine at the back, and radiators at the front.

For all that it was a striking design with a low silhouette and well shaped turret. In all some 1,400 Covenanters were built but they never saw action, being regarded as unbattleworthy by the authorities. Instead they were used extensively for training and some were converted into bridgelayers.

The example at Bovington was, for some unknown reason, buried after the war on a farm near Dorking. It was subsequently rediscovered, dug up and restored by 18 Command REME Workshops at Bovington for the Tank Museum in the mid-80s.



You can clearly see the glacis mounted radiators in this picture:


Any takers for #6 and #9? smile

Last edited by FlatEric; 11/19/14 08:48 PM.
#4038122 - 11/19/14 11:26 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
I can't think of a worse place to put the radiators on a tank can you?

I'll leave it for a while to see if anyone else wants to chip in,if not I will continue the identification.


EV's are the Devils matchbox.
#4038252 - 11/20/14 07:54 AM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
I guess that's what you get when you let a train company build your tanks biggrin

#4039303 - 11/22/14 10:49 AM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
No-one? Ok,here I go.

Is #6 a Vickers Light Tank? Not sure on the exact model.

#9 is I think British but the type eludes me.


EV's are the Devils matchbox.
#4039350 - 11/22/14 01:46 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
Correct again! smile Shame nobody else wants to join in .. frown

#6 is a Vickers-Armstrong Commercial Light Tank ("Dutchman"). In the interwar period, Vickers-Armstrong began exporting tanks all over the world. They sold the 'Dutchman' to China and the Dutch East Indies (hence the nickname). The 'Dutchman' light tank was almost identical to the Vickers Light Mark IV tank, except that the 'Dutchman' had a hexagonal turret. It weighed less than 4 tons, had a Meadows 6-cylinder 88 horsepower engine and could travel at a maximum speed of 40 mph (65kph). It had a as a weapon.

This particular example was intended for the Dutch East Indies, but when war broke out in September 1939, British government seized the shipment. Armed with a single 0.303 inch (7.7mm) Vickers machine gun and armored against rifle caliber bullets, it’s a good example of a ‘colonial tank’ of the time.

#9 is a Tank Cruiser Mark IIA A10, Close Support - a tank for laying smoke screens!!

The A10 was designed as a Heavy Cruiser Tank by Sir John Carden of Vickers-Armstrongs. It was intended to be a more heavily armoured companion for the A9, with which it shared many mechanical components. Most British cruiser tanks of this time mounted the 2 pounder gun but a few were equipped with a 3.7 inch howitzer, in fact a breech-loading mortar, and these were classified as Close Support (CS) tanks. According to British doctrine at the time the role of the close support tank was to fire smoke shells to cover an advance or retreat. Experience against German combined arms tactics in the desert in 1941 showed the fallacy of this concept.

A10 tanks served with 1st Armoured Division in France in 1940 and then in the Western Desert while a few ended up in Greece. The gun was quite capable of firing high explosive shells which might be deemed more useful, particularly when dealing with enemy anti-tank guns, but the official stowage charts for this tank show that smoke shells vastly outnumbered HE rounds.

Here's another photo of this vehicle:


#4039357 - 11/22/14 01:50 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
Damn it,that gun on the Cruiser should have made it easier to find banghead


EV's are the Devils matchbox.
#4040156 - 11/24/14 11:12 AM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,760
BD-123 Offline
Old Scroat
BD-123  Offline
Old Scroat
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,760
Naunton Beauchamp Worcestershi...
Yes Chucky; being slight variations on the usual variants threw me on both these. Vickers mostly having cast turrets for example.
Nice pics though Flats.
Have you been to the Cobbaton Tank Museum in Devon?
Cobbaton
Well worth a visit though framing a good shot is tricky as it is so crowded with interesting stuff. Also don't wear your best clothes; I got into hot water bring my two lads home looking like tar babies due to climbing over greasy exhibits.

Last edited by BD-123; 11/24/14 11:12 AM.


#4040300 - 11/24/14 03:46 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
Hi BD-123, glad you could join the 'FlatEric & Chucky Show' smile

Never heard of the Cobbaton Tank Museum, so thanks for the heads up. Had a look at the website - I can understand why your lads got a bit mucky! If I'm ever down that way I'll definitely drop in for a look around thumbsup

#4042197 - 11/27/14 04:14 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
Hi folks, some more tanks to identify ... wink

#10


#11


#12


#13


A clue - the first three are British ... thumbsup

Good luck! smile

#4042346 - 11/27/14 09:22 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
#10 Can't ID this one.
#11 is a Cruiser MK III.
#12 looks like some sort of Matilda variant,will continue to research.
#13 That's a lot of machine guns. American maybe?


EV's are the Devils matchbox.
#4042595 - 11/28/14 12:26 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
You know your Cruiser tanks ... thumbsup

#11 is indeed a Tank Cruiser Mark III A13. J Walter Christie was a cantankerous American inventor devoted to the development of high speed tanks. He made very little progress at home but managed to sell some prototypes to Russia. In 1936 the British General Wavell, accompanied by Colonel Martel, visited the Red Army manoeuvres and they were amazed by the number of tanks the Russians had, and the speed of their Christie machines - the BT series of light / medium tanks. Once home they persuaded Lord Nuffield to purchase a tank from Christie and from that time all British cruiser tanks up to 1945 had Christie suspension.

This is the Cruiser Mark III with an up-armoured turret, bringing its appearance close to that of the Cruiser Mark IV. The additional armour on the turret sides was spaced from the body of the turret in an effort to defeat rounds from anti-tank rifles.

The Tank Museum’s example is painted to represent the vehicle commanded by one of the Museum’s volunteers, Ron Huggins, of the 10th Royal Hussars, the 1st Armoured Division, France 1940.

More clues - #10 and #12 are related ... and #13 is indeed American wink

#4042621 - 11/28/14 01:21 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
The angle you took #13 is causing me much difficulty.

I wanted to say that #13 was an M3 Lee Grant because it has that style of 'joint' at the front plus I found one with 2 fixed forward firing machine guns in the hull but on the LHS.

I reckon it's a Sherman what with the position of those 2 hatches and that pivoted machine gun but I can't find the variant that has those extra machine guns.

#12 is a Matilda CDL however I feel I cheated because as I was googling Matilda variants the pic came up of the one at Bovington. banghead

I did wonder what that vertical slit was for though.

Last edited by Chucky; 11/28/14 01:27 PM.

EV's are the Devils matchbox.
#4042641 - 11/28/14 02:27 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
Yes, #13 is a Sherman M4A1 smile

The British established a Tank Mission in Washington DC in 1940 under the leadership of Michael Dewar, head of British Timken. The original idea was to persuade the Americans to build British tanks but it was later deemed wiser to stick to American designs. At first tanks, like other munitions, had to be paid for but in March 1941 President Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act came into force. Equipment was loaned to Britain in exchange for American use of British bases.

Design of the M4 Medium Tank dates back to April 1941. A pilot model was ready in September 1941 and production began in February 1942. The first version, classified M4A1, featured a cast hull whereas other versions were welded. Production began at the Lima Locomotive Works and the Tank Museum exhibit is the second production model.

In Britain the tank was christened the 'Sherman' and this is almost certainly the oldest example of a Sherman tank to survive. It has two significant features not seen on later production Shermans. One is the main armament sight, set in the top right of the turret; the other is the extra pair of machine-guns, operated by the driver, at the front. The tank was named MICHAEL in honour of Michael Dewar and when it arrived in London it was displayed on Horse Guards Parade as the first Sherman tank to be delivered under the Lend-Lease scheme.

Here's a few more photographs of it:





Updates on #10 and #12 to follow later smile

#4043034 - 11/29/14 10:29 AM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
As Chucky correctly identified, #12 is a Matilda II CDL.

The CDL - Canal Defence Light - was an early attempt to exploit darkness by using a very bright, flickering light as an offensive weapon. It was the brainchild of Mr A.V.M. Mitzakis, a Greek citizen living in the UK. His idea was to use a 13 million candle power light. This would dazzle, disorient, and possibly temporarily blind any one that looked at it. Furthermore by making the light flicker at a particular frequency the pupils of the eyes of anyone looking at it would expand and contract very rapidly, reinforcing the effect.

Mr Mitzakis interested General Fuller, the tank pioneer, and also the Duke of Westminster in his idea in 1937 and the device was demonstrated to the Army. The War Office expressed no interest until 1940 when it was decided to build prototypes mounted on the Matilda II chassis. They were given the cover name of Canal Defence Lights, possibly suggestive of a project to defend the Suez Canal. The work was conducted in great secrecy. The light source, a carbon arc lamp, was housed in a new armoured turret. There was a vertical slit down the front of the turret. A mechanical shutter that opened and closed over the slit created the flickering effect. The light operator sat on the left side of the turret was provided with asbestos gloves so that he could change the hot carbon arcs when they burned out. He was also provided with a machine gun in the turret front.

Eventually CDL turrets were fitted to 300 Matilda II and V tank chassis, enough to equip one tank brigade in Britain and one in the Middle East. A total of five British Battalions were trained, two of which were sent to the Middle East. They were never used in their intended role.

Early in 1943 it was decided to convert some M3 Grant medium tanks to CDLs after M4 Shermans superseded them as gun tanks. The CDL turret replaced the Grants’ 37mm turret, but they retained their hull mounted 75mm guns. These tanks were sent to North West Europe following the Normandy invasion. They were never deployed in an offensive role but some of them were used to provide illumination when the Rhine was crossed in 1945. Other CDL tanks were sent to the Far East but were not used against the Japanese. The CDL turret was also mounted on the chassis of the Churchill tank.

The US Army adopted the CDL in 1943 and 335 M3 tanks were converted. Eventually six battalions were trained as CDL units for operations in NW Europe. The US Army called the CDL tanks ‘T10 Shop Tractors’ as a disguise. Again, the vehicles were never used in combat.

The CDL is an early example of an incapacitating or non-lethal weapon, a type of weapon that some modern armies are increasingly interested in.



Which just leaves #10. Any takers ...??

PS/. Whoops - forgot to post this additional picture of the Cruiser MK III that Chucky correctly identified above:




Last edited by FlatEric; 11/29/14 10:35 AM.
#4043038 - 11/29/14 10:55 AM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
If #10 and #12 are related then it must either be another Matilda variant or another CDL yep

I've seen those mounting brackets on another Matilda but they were missing what I presume are the smoke launchers,fired by a cable from inside the tank. However other tanks may have the same design. Hmmm. The paint scheme suggests the Med.

I'm going to say a Matilda MK II.




Last edited by Chucky; 11/29/14 11:07 AM.

EV's are the Devils matchbox.
#4043484 - 11/30/14 11:40 AM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
Correct, #10 is an Infantry Tank Mk II A12, otherwise commonly known as a Matilda II.

The Matilda II was a British infantry tank of the WW2. It was the only British tank to serve from the start of the war to its end, although it is particularly associated with the North Africa Campaign. It was replaced in service by the Infantry Tank Mk III Valentine. With its heavy armour the Matilda II was an excellent infantry support tank, but with limited speed and armament.

Like many other British infantry tanks, it was heavily armoured. The heavy armour of the Matilda's cast turret became legendary; for a time in 1940–41 the Matilda earned the nickname "Queen of the Desert". The sheer thickness of its armour made the tank impervious to the 37mm and 50mm calibre anti-tank guns that were then commonly used by the Germans, as well as the 47 mm used by the Italians in North Africa. Only the 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun and the legendary 88mm anti-aircraft gun could penetrate its armour reliably.

The slow speed of the Matilda was further exacerbated by a troublesome suspension and a comparatively weak power unit, the latter of which was actually created using two bus engines linked to a single shaft. This arrangement was both complicated and time-consuming to maintain, as it required technician crews had to work on each engine separately and subjected automotive components to uneven wear-and-tear. It did however, provide some mechanical redundancy, since failure in one engine would not prevent the Matilda from travelling under its own power using the other.

One of the most serious weaknesses of the Matilda II was the lack of a high-explosive round for its QF 2 pounder (40 mm) main gun. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2 pounder but for reasons never explained it was not placed in production.

As well as the 2 pounder main gun the turret also mounted two smoke grenade launchers on the right side. The grenade launcher mechanisms were cut down Lee-Enfield rifles, each firing a single smoke grenade. The unique camouflage scheme used on Matildas based in the desert was designed by Major Denys Pavitt of the Camouflage Development And Training Centre, and was based on the 'Dazzle' paintings of first world war ships.

Here's a few more pictures of the Bovington exhibit.




#4043567 - 11/30/14 05:22 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
One of the worst tanks ever built – the Tank, Infantry, Valiant (A38) was a British tank design of WW2 that (thankfully!) only reached the prototype stage.

Valiant was ordered as an Infantry Assault Tank for service in the Far East and the designers were instructed to keep the weight down as low as possible but to apply the thickest armour. In order to save weight the hull was reduced in size as far as possible. The front casting was virtually moulded around the driver while the turret ring actually stuck out from the sides of the hull. The turret, on the other hand, was enormous since the War Office insisted that a minimum of three men were to be accommodated.

The Valiant's suspension was tested by the Fighting Vehicle Proving Establishment at Chertsey in May 1945. The first day gave minor problems and was abandoned after only 13 miles (21 km) of easy on-road driving. The driver was then found to be exhausted and almost crippled by the driving position and in some danger of injury from the controls. The steering levers needed his full weight to operate and the seat, foot brake and gear lever all carried risk of physical injury in using them. The Officer in Charge decided to abandon the trials there and then as it was impossible and unsafe to continue. There were also issues with weight distribution and the ground clearance of only 9 inches, and by that point of the war there was no longer a need for the tank. The Valiant project was terminated.

The sole Valiant was retained by the School of Tank Technology, where students were treated to an inspection of it at the end of their course and invited to find fault. Tank historian David Fletcher wrote of this: "One hopes they started early in the morning!"



Another rarity at Bovington is this example of a Schmalturm, or ‘narrow turret’, an attempt to improve the Panther tank that was initiated by Rheinmetall in late 1943. It was an ingenious arrangement. Being narrower than the regular Panther turret the Schmalturm presented less of a target area to incoming fire but it had thicker armour if it was hit. It fitted the same turret ring as the standard version and still had sufficient room inside to permit the crew to work comfortably. There was little saving in weight but a considerable saving of between 30 and 40 percent in man hours required to make it.

The plan was to introduce a new version of Panther, the Ausfuehrung F which would carry the new turret but with the same 75mm KwK42 gun as the production Panther. By the time production was ready to begin the war in Europe was coming to an end and German industry was under sustained and heavy air attack.

At least two turrets survived the war; one went to the USA, the other to Britain where, in due course it was handed over to the Tank Museum. However it was later disposed of and taken up to the Royal Artillery range at Larkhill on Salisbury Plain as a hard target. Some years later the badly damaged remains were recognised, rescued and brought back to Bovington where staff at the Tank Museum workshops cleaned up and repainted what was left.



For comparison, here’s a picture of The Museum’s Panther G:


The Model G was the last main production variant of Panther and the example at Bovington was one of a group built, under British control, at the end of the war. These were tested in Britain and Germany and may have contributed to the design of the British Centurion.

This Panther was found partly completed on the production lines after the German surrender and was finished by REME troops. It has features characteristic of the Ausf G, including increased armour, a one-piece side plate and hinged hatches in the hull.

#4043569 - 11/30/14 05:29 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
Chucky Online sosad
Veteran
Chucky  Online Sosad
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,105
UK
Very interesting info as usual FlatEric,thanks for your efforts thumbsup


EV's are the Devils matchbox.
#4044566 - 12/02/14 08:41 PM Re: Tankfest 2013 [Re: FlatEric]  
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
FlatEric Offline
Member
FlatEric  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 405
England, UK
Three more 'oddities' before we look at some of the more familiar vehicles.

With the Fall of France in July 1940, the British Government made efforts to prepare for the threatened invasion. One problem was the defence of airfields against airborne troops.

An ideal solution for protecting the open space of an airfield was by tanks and armoured cars. However, the British Army lacked heavy equipment, having abandoned much of it during the evacuation of Dunkirk. An alternative was needed which would not compete for resources with conventional armaments.

The 'Bison' was effectively a mobile pillbox that could be driven to defensive positions when needed, or even used to block runways against landings.

The Bison was the invention of Charles Bernard Mathews who was a director of Concrete Limited. At this time, there were many attempts to improvise armoured vehicles, but Mathews had the resources and experience to take a professional approach.

Mathews bought twenty-four old lorry chassis on which to base the vehicles and made up a prototype to show to local military authorities. Helpful criticism was forthcoming and Mathews was able to produce a version which met the requirements of the Army. Mathews said: "[mobile] concrete pill-boxes will never take the place of armoured cars and tanks, but the enemy would find them a serious obstacle. Their great attraction is that anybody can make them – once he knows how".

Mathews' company trademark was a Bison, a name which became a generic label for any of these concrete armoured vehicles.

The walls (armour?) on the Bisons were about 6 inches (150 mm) thick and were found to stand up well to Bren gun and armour-piercing bullets. It is not clear how many Bisons were produced; estimates vary between two and three hundred. Note how the suspension of the Museum example rests on axle stands to avoid flattening the tyres!




The Light Tank Mk VII (A17), also known as the Tetrarch, was a British pre-war design, offered by Vickers-Armstrongs as a new generation light tank, but considered by the Army as a light cruiser on account of its 2 pounder gun. In the end it became an airborne tank by default, due to its size, not its fighting powers, which were negligible by 1944.

For the Normandy invasion the 7.5 ton Tetrarchs were carried in General Aircraft G. A. L. 29 Hamilcar Gliders which were towed typically by a Handley-Page Halifax. The Hamilcar was not an attractive aircraft but apparently it flew very well. It was fitted with a large hinged door in the nose, for loading and unloading, while the undercarriage consisted of two large wheels attached to the sides of the fuselage with long oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers which could be deflated to bring the fuselage down to as near ground level as possible. Failing that, if the undercarriage was damaged, ash strips beneath the fuselage acting as skids held the plane steady as it skidded to a halt.

During the landing the driver fired the tank up so that it would be ready to drive out at soon as the glider stopped. As the tank moved forwards it pushed against a strap which in turn caused the nose door to open and as soon as it started to emerge the entire fuselage tilted forwards but this didn’t matter anymore, the Hamilcar wasn’t going anywhere.

In all eight tanks, belonging to 6th Airborne Reconnaissance Regiment, Royal Armoured Corps took part in the initial airborne landings by 6th Airborne Division, all apparently manned by Royal Tank Regiment crews. Once outside the glider the Tetrarchs were on their own. Most of them ran over discarded parachute lines that became tangled around the suspension and took most of the night to remove but the few that avoided this fate went out on patrol and at least two of these ran into German self-propelled 88mm guns, against which they had no chance at all. Come to that there were very few things in the 1944 German armoury that they could cope with so one is entitled to ask whether there was any point in sending them at all, except for the fact that it could be done.

The Museum’s own Tetrarch, seen here in a mock-up of a Hamilcar Glider is a close support version mounting a 3 inch howitzer.




The Black Prince was a futile attempt to update the design of the Churchill Infantry Tank by fitting a new turret with the 17pdr gun to an enlarged Churchill hull.

Vauxhall Motors designed the Black Prince to General Staff specification A43 in 1943. It was seen as ‘interim’ design, pending the availability of the ‘universal tank’ - what would become the Centurion - that would replace both Infantry and Cruiser tanks. The Black Prince was based on the design of the Churchill but the hull was enlarged to carry a bigger turret that mounted a 17 pounder tank gun. The Churchill’s suspension was modified and the tracks were 10 inches wider than those of the Churchill, (24in vs. 14in), to carry the 10 tons of extra weight due to the bigger hull, new turret and the larger gun.

Despite the increase in weight the Black Prince used the same 345hp Vauxhall engine as the Churchill, giving it a power-to-weight ratio of about 7hp/ton. As a result the new tank lacked agility and was very slow with a maximum speed 10.5mph on roads, about 7.5mph across country. This severely limited its’ tactical usefulness. Many believe that the Black Prince should have been fitted with the proven Rolls Royce Meteor engine of about 600hp. Contemporary documents suggest that this was investigated but never done.

Six prototypes were built. By the time that these appeared in May 1945 the 17 pounder gun was already well in service in the Sherman Firefly, the recently introduced Comet had the similar 77mm gun and the Centurion was about to makes its’ debut. All of these had much better cross-country performance than the Black Prince and as there was no need for an improved Churchill the project was abandoned.

The Tank Museum’s exhibit is the fourth prototype and is the only survivor.


Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0