Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

whelm

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    43

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by whelm

  1. whelm
    yup even 1/4 an inch helped against the PIAT There was another British test for "future" tanks with a few varying thickness up to 1 inch skirts and various hull sides and if I recall it made quite a difference. I imagine the M6 heavy for example with it's 1 inch skirt must have helped immensely in firing trials.
  2. whelm
  3. whelm
    Logan, which was used in the M3 and Ram, some early M4's had it afaik. It had problems.
  4. whelm
    Some excellent new photos from 8Hussar's photobucket on the Gun Ram at the CWM. http://s661.photobucket.com/user/8Hussar/library/?sort=2&page=1 Uploaded the turret+gun mount ones to imgur due to photobucket being a royal pain in the arse in general. Album https://imgur.com/a/JpHAxql
  5. whelm
    good report on that at least in regards to ammo. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a136625.pdf
  6. whelm
    Small report on the Cletrac during WW2 https://imgur.com/a/WLZEpwm
  7. whelm
    It's np
  8. whelm
    Taking known dimensions from primary sources on the Ram OP and regular Ram I + II to come up with numbers. Hull height is to the highest point at the turret ring, Turret height is to top of periscope over cupola and top of periscope on turret roof. No idea on actual roof height but you could probably make a rough estimation using the known heights, the photo with the turret removed and the measurements from the suspension. Hull width is the side hull cast in bulges, versions with the door in place are wider still. You can see in the photo how the actual overall width is lower everywhere else on the hull. Question remains if they had measured to the older style periscopes or the newer taller ones.
  9. whelm
    Whelms fine. Thanks
  10. whelm
    Kangaroo with what looks like an engine change or some sort of major mod. exhaust soot on the rear upper plate, and what looks like the two exhausts sticking out of the rear engine deck plate. Only thing I can think of is an engine change to something like the Fords who's exhaust normally comes right out the lower rear plate on the M4A3, so instead of cutting 1.5 inches of steel to make an opening, they just piped it up and out of the engine cover. Edit: Turns out that exhaust mod was done specifically to Ram towers only it seems, I suppose for clearance issues or wadding requirements?
  11. whelm
    Wartime censorship in action. And the unedited version
  12. whelm
    It's next to impossible to find images of the gun + front adapter assembly dismounted from the tank, but one of the videos Canada at war had this scene.
  13. whelm
    Same reason the Ram I had the 2 pdr, no tank mounting existed for the 6 pdr. Canada's waiting on the UK who say they are working on it but it's not materializing so they go ahead and design their own. Australia wants the 6 pdr in their tank so they ask Canada for drawings to see how they manged it.
  14. whelm
    Yes they are nice stowage diagrams, I had paid to have two different 6 pdr mounting part lists scanned at the Aussie archives and they host everything like that after on their site which is nice. Bonus was the stowage stuff included in the papers. they are nice for layering as well to compare and get a idea on rough slope for the different sections (in front of driver and cupola)
  15. whelm
    Well those french drawings show 1950 mm for what I assume is just the size of the cut opening on hull top. Canada had the M4's outside diameter of the turret ring as 2051 mm, the inside diameter of the ring is listed as 1752.6 mm. I can only assume that is being measured from before the ring is installed and then when the ring and all the mounting equipment is installed, it also may be factoring in that 65 mm extra for the bolt down area, but I'm unsure on that. I don't have many Sherman photos with the turret off showing the turret ring installed so using the Ram as an example. Using 8Haussars photos from the war museum. Turret ring listed as having a 1832 mm lower outside diameter, and a 1537 mm upper inside diameter. You can see quite well on the third photo just how much space is eaten up by it's turret ring design.
  16. whelm
    Dolye? or Spielberger or Jentz (all three?) I can't recall which book talk about the Panther's final drive trouble. Particularly on the Jagdpanther as it had more weight on the front and was dying even faster then the regular Panther. Something like 30-50km? before it gave up the ghost. Towards the end of the war they started to get the heavier duty final drives and transmission/gearboxes the 7-400? that they reported the life increasing to 400-500 km and had yet to have a failure at the point of the report. If I were a betting man I would say very little if any regular panthers ended up getting those as they probably reserved them for the more strained Jagdpanther. Interesting that the French blueprints show the Panther G with a 90mm hull front and a 70mm lower. Seen the 70mm lower reported numerous times since the allies first started to capture them (up to 75mm in a few cases) but a 90mm glacis plate is the thickest I have ever seen listed (usually 85mm)
  17. whelm
    A nice write up on the 6 pdr APDS MK I shot design dated January 1945 https://imgur.com/a/zphKP9z
  18. whelm
    A chance the guys in the workshop/field messed up as well and applied the kit to a tank that was not supposed to get it. Same reason some of the late turrets that had the weakspots fixed with thicker armour cast in the ended up having the extra armour welded to them anyways by mistake.
  19. whelm
    The dedicated tower had no turret but they tested a regular tank and one with out the turret vs a few other vehicles. Both got up to 28 mph on the test track while towing. placing the Ram drawing over the M4, These are not to scale by any means, but it would be very interesting to find actual interior dimensions for both turrets to compare. One thing to note is how far in the actual gun mounting on the Ram is due to the interior mantlet design, if they had of gone with a new bolt on front plate with an exterior style mantlet you can see how much room it would have freed up, allowing a larger gun to not hit the smaller turret ring. Recall they stuck the 75mm M3 in a churchill turret and that's only a 54 inch ring. and just for fun looking at what the the M4 turret on the ram could look like if it had an adapter to fit the smaller turret ring. Not to mention what other nations could shove inside a relatively small ring (Aussies with the sentinel, Germans in the Pz IV, Soviets with the T-34) https://imgur.com/a/z2dgmAz Another interesting thing to note is the inside vs outside diameter of the turret ring, or opening? cut into the hull top. I guess some of this would depend on the size/weight of turret the ring has to support as well. Valentine turret ring 55.5 inch outside 50 inch inside Ram turret ring 72.125 inch outside 60.5 inch inside M4 80.75 inch outside 69 inch inside Pz IV 66.14 inch opening in hull top? 62.99 inch inside
  20. whelm
    As far as I know the intention to fit the US 75mm in the Ram existed from the start, but the numbers were not there to get any as the US was using them all early on. a 60 inch ring is more then ample enough considering the QF 75mm conversion that was later fitted. And used on the much smaller British turrets to boot. The soviets had asked for an example to be sent to them, but I have no idea how far that went. It would have been interesting if the soviets had of received them as I'm sure they would have up gunned them easily. The turret was designed with this in mind, the whole point of the entire front being bolted on so it could be replaced with a new design. As for the speed of the Ram when it was in good condition and working well it was quite a bit faster then the M4. Towing a 17 pdr while retaining the turret and still being able to achieve 45 kph is no small feat. Rams were used and abused as training vehicles so lots of wear on them all, compared to the M4's which they had orders to be much more gentle with and had KM limits they were not allowed to exceed on them if used in training. It's a given the M4 had better conditions for the crew as they had more space to work in. but there's always a trade off. more space = more volume of space to armour = more weight for the same level of protection. So the M4 weighed less then the Ram and had less protection almost everywhere on the upper hull and turret. Things like sights are easy to change if there is a need. One of the very late things they did on the Ram's when they started to make the few hundred "operational" tanks before that was canceled was giving every crew member a periscope and two for the commander in the cupola hatches. They planned and wanted ARV cupolas and may have received a British type one which had conversions done up to allow them to fit on the m4 and Ram, they may have received one to test on a Ram, but supply for ARV cupolas was quite limited, they looked at using modified M3 or Ram cupolas as a substitute as well. .30 cal AA was weak for AA purposes yes, they never quite nailed down what they were going to do with that as it was a stop gap thing. And by the time they decided it would only be used for training they shelved any further changes. The PLM mount became standard just before that which could mount dual or single Bren guns, Vickers K guns or .30 cals. They talked about an easy conversion to the .50 cal if that was needed as well. The 8 pdr, and the 10 pdr which were both designed to fit in the existing 6 pdr mounting could have been used, they had much better performance then the 6 pdr but the British found they couldn't fit as many rounds inside their own tanks, they mention the Ram would have had much less of a problem in that regard due to more space. would be interesting to find what kind of HE rounds those would have had and if they could have been "Good enough" to not need the 75mm. The 6 pdr Canuck gun would have fit in the existing mounting as well giving insane AP performance.
  21. whelm
    SD is probably? referring to SD technical, sections that covered a number of different things. Can't recall what it stands for or what each SD 1,2,3 and so on covered exactly. Like SD 8 also covered artillery reports
  22. whelm
    I paid to have a copy made from the war museum in Ottawa. This was the April 1943 manual only covering the Ram II, an earlier 1942 one exists covering the Ram I + II as well but the museums copy was missing. I was hoping for details like in the US manuals where they go into greater detail like listing armour values as well but not such luck. At least the microfilms had those details, but it's always nice to have multiple primary sources backing details up. https://imgur.com/a/yymbLEh An example of a complete manual binder that sold a couple of years ago. They seem to pop up every once and awhile like on ebay. http://www.davidmasonbooks.com/oclists/elist35-na018.php
  23. whelm
    T6 pilot yes. They kept using it as a test bed as the years went on. Note it has the early/first? one piece lower front casting as well at this point. The sexton pilot or not will be using whatever they had on hand that suited the conditions they wanted to test I suppose, just like the Ram or the M3 or M4. https://imgur.com/a/4Dty1l9 Track types and details from the Ram manual 1943 and Canadian tank data book 1944.
  24. whelm
    1954
  25. whelm
    Your correct that it's related to the Ram 3.7" Evolution of that. Designed but never built. 3.7" Assault SPG
×
×
  • Create New...