Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Tanks of the Commonwealth in WWII thread

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Churchill NA 75 conversion using Sherman gun and mantlet to correct the deficiencies in the Churchill Mk IV's armament and frontal turret protection.         

The Ram makes a long dead bit of my anatomy wiggle. Just  so... Because it is Canadian , but it is not quite ALL Canuck.   I want to hug it, but it says "No you are American!", and I sa

The armor is thicker in the unedited version.

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.



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. 

Link to post
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 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.


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.






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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Monochromelody
      70 years ago, January the 2nd, 1951. To the North of Seoul, in the mountains and hills near Go-yang-tong(高阳洞), British 1RUR dug in and fought against advancing PVA forces. 1RUR got a task force called Cooperforce to support, this is a tank unit from Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Artillery, equipped with Cromwell tanks. 
      When Matthrew Ridgeway assigned the order of withdraw in this afternoon, the US force covering British force's left flank quickly escaped from their sector, leaving the British were completed unawared and uncovered. 
      When the night falls, was cold and dark in the valley. 1RUR had to withdraw in the darkness. All of a sudden, a US spotter aircraft flew over the valley, drop some illumination flares upon the retreating convoy. 
      Fierce battle broke out when flares fall down, PVA firing from all directions, the cold valley became deadly kill zone. Some PVA soldiers put away their rifles, assaulting with hand grenades, satchel charges and Bangalore torpedoes. They even set up mortars on the hill, laying shells with direct fire. 
      200 British soldiers and artillerymen were killed or captured in one night. 1RUR's Battalion Commander Tony Blake was believed KIA. Cooperforce was completely knocked out, all 12 tanks were destroyed or captured by light infantry. Leader Ashley Cooper were also killed. 

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)

      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.

      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • 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. 

  • Create New...