Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Tanks of the Commonwealth in WWII thread


Walter_Sobchak
 Share

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.

 

c3c75465cad0290d80bc8746806f7f7a.jpg

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
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)

acjIuON.jpg

 

 

M6 heavy used the same sort of Idea as well.

gboMHtT.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

z1Q46h1.png

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Examples

 

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.

 

Spoiler

GnQMe6t.png

boklYri.jpg

vLPbRrH.jpg

3CNxO3h.jpg

7XC92gw.jpg

y9ST8zU.png

4gQ25e0.jpgCCtf0Gt.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

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)

Spoiler

Y8fSv3K.jpg

Y4M2XGB.jpg

USOUxjm.jpg

 

 

Compare those to the Sherman Jumbo's roof.

 

ubQRgm2.jpg

ypkRB5j.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

 

 

Cupola

Spoiler

SNbfi82.png

bz8kWOL.png

 

 

 

 

 

C1rjLwf.jpg

 

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.

 

Spoiler

6nWEBdH.jpg

nJBQobF.png

vVAxJew.jpg

 

 

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.

 

Spoiler

V1K4pVT.png

rX5myuV.jpg

htpzS2x.jpg

9268311688_1182ddb822_b.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Spoiler

tespAAH.jpg

 

 

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.

Link to comment
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.

 

BrgaTJT.jpg
 

 

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.

 

https://imgur.com/a/B0ESp1f

 

 

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

 

Spoiler

r1mOzBC.jpg

uSFiUw4.jpg

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     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 judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^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 4 inches.
      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- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in 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 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     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.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in 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.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 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- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • By SuperComrade
      I was recently looking at the Japanese wikipedia page for the Chi-Ha tank, and it had this section on the name of the tank:

       
       
      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?
×
×
  • Create New...