Jump to content
 

50t Warwell Wagon in OO Gauge

Hattons Dave

By Hattons Dave,
in Hattons

 Share

Recommended Posts

Arthur

Arthur

Posted
Posted

 

 

The Crusader wasn't a tank transporter tractor Brian, it was used by the Royal Engineer and RTC as a heavy equipment/plant transporter. The Antar replacement was the Commander.

 

The Army had three versions of Crusader, recovery vehicle, a 38t tractor and a 65t tractor as in your link, none capable of moving an MBT.

 

The CR100 Amazon rated at 100t, a Crusader with a heavy duty rear bogie was used by some of the defence procurement and testing agencies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
PaulRhB

PaulRhB

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

Just mentioned this topic to a mate who works at York who says the Warriors vehicles have a cradle to park on if being shipped on a warwell

Yes mentioned in passing already and visible in any shots of the warrior. Positions it to keep the turret within the loading gauge but they still require restrictions in many places so run with an OPPOS out of gauge code which means in certain areas the opposite line must be blocked as it passes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Clive Mortimore

Clive Mortimore

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

So at the moment we occasionally trundle a Grammodels  FV432 APC around on a lowmac

 

Suspected it was overweight for a lowmac but googling suggests a weight of 15 tons against Lowmac tare of 25 tons so OK...

 

A good load for a warwell though....

 

Scimitar tank only 7.8 tons but probably also needed warwell or lowmac to be within gauge ... what other armoured vehicles were around in the 60s/70s ? Seems to be a bit of a quiet period....

 

Phil

Hi Phil

 

I think the Scimitar and Scorpion are small enough travel on warflats, I am sure I saw them being delivered on them at Ludgershall in the 70s.

 

Nice little AFV to drive, we use to race them around the workshops in Tidworth. We had a big modification project on and we were working overtime most nights so when we had to move them from one shed to another we would race each other, sometimes the MOD police would help us move them. When the local civilians moaned about tanks being raced in the evenings the MOD police were unaware of this happening.

 

When I was at Marchwood quite a lot of kit came by rail, cannot recall any Scorpions or Scimitars but I do remember having to check that the guns were secure on some being shipped to Germany but from memory they came in on their own tracks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fat Controller

Fat Controller

Posted
Posted

Some for Clive:-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5855915817/in/album-72157627008284776/  Scorpion or Scimitar on Warwell.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5854771894/in/album-72157627008284776/  Warrior?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5854771894/in/album-72157627008284776/  Bedford truck; note canopy framing lowered.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5855890113/in/album-72157627008284776/  modified 'Scorpion?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/16580737177/in/album-72157627008284776/ Scorpion on Warflat?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5854112399/in/album-72157627008284776/   APC (FV432?) and Scorpion on Warflat

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5854072025/in/album-72157627008284776/  What is this beast?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
PaulRhB

PaulRhB

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
All Scimitars rather than scorps, you can tell by the thin cannon rather than the 76mm gun, and that's not a fv432 as it's on the same chassis as the scimitars while the 432 uses a different one.

That is a warrior :)

Edit: the one on the flat is a Spartan I think (rather than 432).

Edited by PaulRhB
Link to post
Share on other sites
exet1095

exet1095

Posted
Posted (edited)

All Scimitars rather than scorps, you can tell by the thin cannon rather than the 76mm gun, and that's not a fv432 as it's on the same chassis as the scimitars while the 432 uses a different one.

That is a warrior :)

Edit: the one on the flat is a Spartan I think (rather than 432).

It is a Spartan. All the Scimitars are Scimitars, rather than Sabres, which were Scorpions rebuilt with Fox turrets and a chain gun.

 

Lots of other good A vehicles too - Panther, Saxon GWR (general war role) and more.

 

Still have most of them on my FMT600

Edited by exet1095
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tricky-CRS

Tricky-CRS

Posted
Posted

attachicon.giforiginal warwell.jpg

 

Hi all,

 

It's been tough to resist temptation to announce this project (and the Beilhacks) early on here, but we're now at the stage at which we can confirm the following project is in production.

 

50 Ton bogie well 'Warwell' wagon in OO and O gauges

 

All the information on both models is available at www.hattons.co.uk/warwell however the basics are

 

  • Tooling covering both 'as built' and refurbished variations, as well as BR modifications for steel and rail carrying (BR mods are OO gauge only).
  • Heavy Diecast bodyshell, separately fitted details and specific decoration with lots of liveries covered.
  • Release in Q4 2017 for OO shortly followed by O gauge.
  • Pricing at £33 - 37 for OO, £85 for O.

Let us know what you think!

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

www.hattons.co.uk/warwell

 

Did you consider doing these in N Gauge as well? I am sure they would be very popular and with plenty of vehicle kits available to go on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tangoman69

Tangoman69

Posted
Posted

99.9% of people on here wont know what a 600 is!!

 

I remember the Mexican police wanting lots of pesos to give mine back to me at the border to Belize, I said 'no thanks' and got another when back at airport camp.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trains&armour

Trains&armour

Posted
Posted

Two WW II alternatives for the ubiquitous Sherman loaded warwell:

 

post-13158-0-88248800-1476821939_thumb.jpg

M10 mk II tankdestroyers. Source: Nash, G.C., The LMS at War, Norwich 1946, p.19

 

post-13158-0-65905100-1476824994_thumb.jpg

GWR 42xx with M3 ' Lee's'. 

(Would looke great alongside a train of GWR crocodiles loaded with M3 'Grants')

Source (sorry!): http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=45641&start=30#p553915

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
JSpencer

JSpencer

Posted
Posted

Two WW II alternatives for the ubiquitous Sherman loaded warwell:

 

attachicon.gifRMweb warwell-M10.jpg

M10 mk II tankdestroyers. Source: Nash, G.C., The LMS at War, Norwich 1946, p.19

 

attachicon.gifRMweb-Warwell-lee.jpg

GWR 42xx with M3 ' Lee's'. 

(Would looke great alongside a train of GWR crocodiles loaded with M3 'Grants')

Source (sorry!): http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=45641&start=30#p553915

Hmmm, the M10s are about as wide as a Churchill. I wonder if they had to watch the loading gauge for them? I guess these are Wolverines (standard US 76mm gun) and not upgraded Achilles (17 pounder gun).

 

At the I saw some where that the Warwells were designed for Sherman's (M4 and variants), but I have to wonder if it was actually the M3s (Lee and Grants) that actually inspired their construction having seen the photo now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trains&armour

Trains&armour

Posted
Posted

Hmmm, the M10s are about as wide as a Churchill. I wonder if they had to watch the loading gauge for them? I guess these are Wolverines (standard US 76mm gun) and not upgraded Achilles (17 pounder gun).

 

At the I saw some where that the Warwells were designed for Sherman's (M4 and variants), but I have to wonder if it was actually the M3s (Lee and Grants) that actually inspired their construction having seen the photo now.

These are late production model M10's with duckbill counterweights and no extra bolts on the sides for additional armour. And as by far most of the Achilles conversions were done on these late production M10's, they could very well be Achilles mk II's, but it's hard to tell with the turrets facing to the rear and the gun tubes secured . (as they should be, when in transport). And as the guns were the only major visual difference between the Achilles and the standard M10, it's impossible to be sure. 

 

As to the warwell, I do think it was designed with the M4 in mind. That's the tank the British army wanted, and the M3 was only ordered as a stop gap measure.

With the lessons learned from observing the war in Europe  the Americans decided that a new tank should have one big turret with a 75mm gun. 

But because designing this new type of tank would take some time, as an intermediate solution, the multi-turreted M2 tank was uparmoured and upgunned to the M3 and put into production,  until the M4 design was finalised and replaced the M3 on the production lines.

As at the time the M3 went into production the British were in desperate need of a 75mm gunned tank, they decided not the wait for the M4 and ordered the M3 , albeit with some modifications and calling it the M3 Grant. (the "Lee' designation for the original tank was  a British one as well, as the Americans didn't name their tank designs).

This  decision not to wait for the M4 and buying the M3  was vindicated at the Battle of Gazala in May 1942, when the M3 Grants deployed to North Africa gave Rommel a nasty surprise!.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JSpencer

JSpencer

Posted
Posted

These are late production model M10's with duckbill counterweights and no extra bolts on the sides for additional armour. And as by far most of the Achilles conversions were done on these late production M10's, they could very well be Achilles mk II's, but it's hard to tell with the turrets facing to the rear and the gun tubes secured . (as they should be, when in transport). And as the guns were the only major visual difference between the Achilles and the standard M10, it's impossible to be sure. 

 

As to the warwell, I do think it was designed with the M4 in mind. That's the tank the British army wanted, and the M3 was only ordered as a stop gap measure.

With the lessons learned from observing the war in Europe  the Americans decided that a new tank should have one big turret with a 75mm gun. 

But because designing this new type of tank would take some time, as an intermediate solution, the multi-turreted M2 tank was uparmoured and upgunned to the M3 and put into production,  until the M4 design was finalised and replaced the M3 on the production lines.

As at the time the M3 went into production the British were in desperate need of a 75mm gunned tank, they decided not the wait for the M4 and ordered the M3 , albeit with some modifications and calling it the M3 Grant. (the "Lee' designation for the original tank was  a British one as well, as the Americans didn't name their tank designs).

This  decision not to wait for the M4 and buying the M3  was vindicated at the Battle of Gazala in May 1942, when the M3 Grants deployed to North Africa gave Rommel a nasty surprise!.

 

The Americans built the M4s to fit the British loading gauge, this has often lead to criticisms that it made the tank too small (particularly late war). In fairness, the Germans too made their tanks to fit the railway loading gauge too, Panthers, Tigers and even King Tigers could travel by rail but then Germany had a much bigger loading gauge to do so.

 

Side tracking, I am amazed at the shear volume of steam locos Germany built, running into tens of thousands while the UK turned out about 3000 (most of these shunters). Tank production figures between the two nations are about the same, so imagine if the steel for loco production was used for tank production instead.

 

How many trains of Warwells to move a division?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernard Lamb

Bernard Lamb

Posted
Posted

Side tracking, I am amazed at the shear volume of steam locos Germany built, running into tens of thousands while the UK turned out about 3000 (most of these shunters).

If you look at it another way it makes a bit more sense.

Take the difference in mileage between places into account.

A miles per loco figure would be a lot closer for the two countries.

As it was, we were very reliant on finding working German locomotives still in existence in April 1945.

That first winter in Germany and neighbouring countries would have been even worse if we had only UK built machines to move food and fuel.

Slightly OT. Any wagons such as flats or wells were in great demand by all European railways in the immediate post war period and they had a habit of vanishing. There were people who had the task of getting them back if they came across any. Rebranding to try and fool the not so well informed officials was not unknown.

Bernard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...