Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Tanks of the Commonwealth in WWII thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

That was quite the roll-out reveal...


I assume that protruding from the turret face is a smoke mortar, which I guess didn't make it to the main production.


On the topic of Rams, is this a 75mm gun pictured? I couldn't find anything on the image.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Yup, that's the 2" bomb thrower. I think it got eliminated at some point.


The Ordnance QF 75 mm had a muzzle brake, so I don't think that's it. That also seems to be a Ram I turret. Do you have this photo in a bigger resolution?

That was as big an image of it as I could find, and they were all on pintrest only.


After looking at it again while fully awake, the idea of it being a dummy gun for a an OP vehicle comes to mind. There certainly seems to be a few more bits attached to the tanks exterior.  However, wouldn't those all have been late production vehicles?  This is seems to be an earlier one, especially since I now also notice it has the smoke thrower on the turret face. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

a dummy gun for sure, probably an early try at a recovery vehicle or work on the early Command OP tank design.


Lots of nice little clips in the newsreels if you look.


Ready for the day


Example of training getting ready for D-Day, shows waterproofed Rams landing from ship on the beach, blowing off the water proofing and then a line of them firing out to sea.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

8:03 shows a neat item, a gun sight added to the machinegun cupola. Before that, the idea was that you would just walk the machinegun onto its target with tracers, which turned out to not really work at all.

Ended up standard for them as far as I know, for whatever reason you hardly ever see it in photos (probably easy to damage or misplace it, so not fitted unless needed)




M6 heavy used the same sort of Idea as well.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A line drawing I have been cleaning up from the tank's manual.







1 hour ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

There are enough around in Canada( I think), someone should measure one, like the Chieftain did with the T29 Heavy tank a few years ago. 

It would change depending on date the hull was cast. They thinned the armour out in some places then thickened it in others at later dates. We just don't know by how much exactly or where in many cases.




Around Hull number 321


"Thickness of metal around turret and cupola opening reduced, also at several other points where such reduction does not come below design or service requirements"



Spring 1942


Increased engine protection Ram II tank
"The armour thickness on the sides of the engine compartment has been increased by the change in hull design. Mr. Jamieson can elaborate."




Possible to find photos that show off well how thick some areas are.















I can almost see the roof around the turret and cupola being 3 inches like some spec sheets seem to indicate when you see photos like this. (would also explain why they thinned these locations out on later tanks)







Compare those to the Sherman Jumbo's roof.






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Nice work on that image clean up. Having done a few myself now, very clean work, it looks great. 

Thanks, but this one was just mostly removing lines for the image.


Start to finish









Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the armour thickness changed, and also the casting was variable thickness anyway. I like how people confuse the Grizzly and the Ram and write that the Grizzly had 3 inches of front armour. So many books falsely state that the Grizzly was called M4A5, I think the confusion stems from there.


@whelm I write quite a lot about the Ram on Russian sites, may I post the image you cleaned up? I will credit you under whatever name you provide.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Yes, the armour thickness changed, and also the casting was variable thickness anyway. I like how people confuse the Grizzly and the Ram and write that the Grizzly had 3 inches of front armour. So many books falsely state that the Grizzly was called M4A5, I think the confusion stems from there.


@whelm I write quite a lot about the Ram on Russian sites, may I post the image you cleaned up? I will credit you under whatever name you provide.

Sure you can use it if you like.





Another interesting thing to note on the Ram, most assume It's using M3 medium parts, and well it is and is not.


It used the design as a base but did their own thing with designs from it. This is why the cupola you will notice on the Ram no longer has the vision ports on the side as an example. You may notice the odd M3 in a collection having the same cupola, they are just using a Ram one as they were unable to source an M3 type.


They also thickened them up quite a bit in the casting compared to the standard M3 type. The one spec sheet states 2 1/2 inches (63.5 mm) on the cupola but that may have been for the thinnest area only (rotor shield) A firing test on the Turret front with the 2 and 6 pounder to test shock resistance for the bolts missed the target and a 2pdr AP round struck the cupola penetrating it from the front.


Fired head on from 100 yards and with a striking velocity of 2096 fps, pierced the front but had spent all of it's energy from doing that, as when it hit the inner back wall of the cupola, only displacing the padding around the rim and then fell to the floor.














2 pdr chart from the same period, either the casting was exceptionally good quality or that area was a bit thicker then 63.5mm


Another 2 pounder mistake from the same time frame piercing the hull side. , Canada's pride book on the Ram has a photo of the actual damage from the outside of the hull. I used a cleaned up hull wiring diagram I did to show the rough location, this image is interesting as well as it gives somewhat of an Idea on how and where the casting on the hull sides thin out as you head towards the rear.








Drivers Vision door. It was thicker, by how much ? text is to blurry but when you compare photos of them it's easy to tell the Ram's is a thicker casting.












Another thing most sources get wrong, even the spec sheets and the manual as they only list "aprox" figures for weight. All that armour weighs a ton. In many cases the Ram weighed more then some versions of the M4, I have seen them list it weighed as much as an M4A4 a few times.


Highest value I have seen is from 1944 they state the Ram was fully stowed up to 68,000 lbs when using CDP tracks while testing different bogie materials. But on average I see a listing of about 66,600 lbs stowed.


Battle order weight (fully stowed) comparison






In fact the designers knew the weight was so great that suspension springs were cherry picked that could take a higher load then normal. This was before the improved M4 type suspension with heavier springs came out.

The Ram was a Jumbo before the Jumbo existed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually doing some research on the Sexton right now, and the suspension and running gear are a sore point, specifically synthetic tires. They seem to do a lot better in some conditions, but a lot worse in others. The Sexton also used the Lee style bogeys for a lot longer since it was lighter than the Sherman.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may have had plans drawn up for armouring the sexton in the same way as the M10 with temporary plates that could be removed after they were used. Was listed as a desirable feature for a mod. Never was done as far as I know.




in 1944 they talk about a new order being placed for more sextons and how it would be a good time to look at a bit of a redesign.





good breakdown on the weight difference with suspension type and track used.








Apparently one of the Ram books on the development from service publications states a number of Ram hulls were built as ammunition carriers after production on the Ram and the Grizzly had ended, well into sexton production. So they either converted existing stock into that at the factory or had spare hull tops laying around for use.


This was around when the three piece lower front was phasing out on the sextons and the single piece being used, so the Ammo carriers may have been built with those. Could explain why 1944 and on they make a note to point out the ground clearance on the Ram when it's using a single piece front compared to a 3 piece one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Which book, Canada's Pride or one of the minor ones?

One of the smaller development books. Someone on the maple leaf up forums posted that I can't confirm as I don't have copies on hand.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

production end on Ram II gun tank at CT 160193

production ended on Grizzly at CT 164012

production ended for Ram OP tanks at CT 205181


Book apparently claims the late ammo carriers were CT 231070-CT 231097

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.

      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.


                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
  • Create New...