A Nod To Brent - a friendly thread, filled with frivolity, cream teas and pasties. Longing for the happy days in the South Hams 1947.

[A Murphy]

I'm no expert as you are about to find out, but.....

 

Those are Cromwell close support tanks (probably Mk IVs) and they have transfers that identify them as belonging to 11th Armoured Division, who certainly used them all the way across from Normandy to Northern Germany, where they ended the war. The CS version lasted because they were very useful for close infantry support (there are plenty of photos of them in Germany in 1944-45) and they were retained when ordinary  (Cromwell) gun tanks (75mm) were traded in for the altogether much more effective 77mm equipped Comet. Some probably stayed in active service up to and including the Korean War. 

 

Alastair M

[gwrrob]

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Don't think they warflats would have come to Devonport,  

 

 

I'll change that to a top secret location then. Maybe I should run them unloaded instead.

[Clive Mortimore]

6 hours ago, gwrrob said:

Where's our resident armour expert @Trains&armour when we need him.

 

 

I am a bit disappointed with the Cromwell tank model. It is close support version with the 95mm howitzer. There were not many of them. A squadron HQ would have two, as there were three squadrons in each regiment there were only 6 out 61 tanks per regiment. A 75mm gun Cromwell would have been a better model. It is also a pity they have made a late hull Cromwell, an earlier hull didn't have the co drivers swing hatch and the tool boxes were longer. This would have made the tank suitable for a Centaur CS. The Royal Marines Support Regiment landed at D Day with a full regiment of CS tanks giving fire support for the troops crossing the beaches.

 

Now the boring bit, tanks need to be secured in travel, normally two chains front and rear. The right hand chain is fixed to the left side of the tank and the left chain to the right so they crossed each other. That stops sideways movement and as well fore and aft . Both the hull and turret BESA machine guns would be removed for traveling. With the Cromwell CS there was no need to traverse the turret to the rear. The travel lock for the gun was inside the turret. Tanks with longer guns, like the Sherman Firefly had a travel clamp on the rear deck, even with a travel lock inside the turret a long barreled gun if not clamped can cause damage to the elevating gear making the gun inaccurate when firing. 

 

As an ex Wargamer I would have loved to have RTR Cromwell back in the day. I converted loads of Matchbox Comets to look like Cromwells. 

 

Edit....I went into keyboard worrier mode and hadn't read Alistair's post, so sorry for repeating some of his comments.  

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[gwrrob]

I was planning on using Humber scout cars eventually.

[Clive Mortimore]

My sketches of Cromwells and Centaurs I done for a wargames site I use to contribute to.

[gwrrob]

19 hours ago, gwrrob said:

I was planning on using Humber scout cars eventually.

 

This is the model/s I'm considering for putting on the warflat, maybe two per wagon. This vehicle was made in Coventry during the war at the factory that would later become the home of Peugeot cars. I believe there is one currently in the transport museum. I think Clive and others will say to not fix the machine gun for transport.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by gwrrob
added detail.

[gwrrob]

A few more of 4855 and the very mixed freight.

 

[Clearwater]

@Clive Mortimore (and other tank experts) 

were any of these Cromwell Mk IVs build/manufactured in the BRCW works in Smethwick?

David

[Clive Mortimore]

54 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

@Clive Mortimore (and other tank experts) 

were any of these Cromwell Mk IVs build/manufactured in the BRCW works in Smethwick?

David

Hi David

 

Cromwells were built by BRCW, they made the welded hulls. I cannot find anything that says that they made Mk IVs or that they didn't.

[john dew]

Slightly off topic......question for Clive

 

Did the Comet have a lock for the gun or do I need to turn my  (glued...grr) turret round for rail travel?

 

When a train of warflats was loaded would they drive on from the front or rear of the train or would it depend on location?

 

Cheers

 

John

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

This is the model/s I'm considering for putting on the warflat, maybe two per wagon. This vehicle was made in Coventry during the war at the factory that would later become the home of Peugeot cars. I believe there is one currently in the transport museum. I think Clive and others will say to not fix the machine gun for transport.

 

 

Hi Rob

 

Not only no Bren Gun would not be mounted but all the hatches would be secured as the crew dismounted from the vehicle.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, john dew said:

Slightly off topic......question for Clive

 

Did the Comet have a lock for the gun or do I need to turn my  (glued...grr) turret round for rail travel?

 

When a train of warflats was loaded would they drive on from the front or rear of the train or would it depend on location?

 

Cheers

 

John

Hi John

 

The Comet had a barrel clamp on the rear decking.

 

I have read that the Comet was not transported by rail. I have also read that the Centurion was the first British tank designed without the size limitations of the British loading gauge and it was to be road transported. The Comet was 10 ft wide (as were late Mks of Cromwell)  so I don't know if was able to be rail transported in most of Britain.

 

Where possible it would be tanks drive on going forward and drive off going forward. Whether that was from the front or rear of the train depended on the location. Some places the tanks came off the side of the wagons. They would do a neutral turn on the wagon so they ended up 90 degrees to it and drive off on to a loading platform.  

[Trains&armour]

On 21/09/2019 at 12:59, gwrrob said:

Where's our resident armour expert @Trains&armour when we need him.

 

I,m back!

 

But I don't have much to add to the comments on the prototype by Clive. As to the Cromwell model, it's a plastic model and looks like a plastic model. It needs to be painted and weathered. And the rear mudguards definitely need some work. Probably some other areas as well, but it's hard to tell from the photographs. Wait till I get my hands on one....

Edited September 22, 2019 by Trains&armour

[Trains&armour]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have read that the Comet was not transported by rail.

You might be mistaken...  While browsing the internet just now I came across this photo:

 

 I do think the  tank behind the Churchill is a Comet.  Probably the rest as well. The tank is clearly wider than the warwell, and has the modified track layout with return rollers. The rear of the turret with its overhang and visible commander's cupola also matches the Comet layout.

https://www.blhs.org.uk/index.php/head_military/world-war-ii

[Clive Mortimore]

31 minutes ago, Trains&armour said:

You might be mistaken...  While browsing the internet just now I came across this photo:

 

 I do think the  tank behind the Churchill is a Comet.  Probably the rest as well. The tank is clearly wider than the warwell, and has the modified track layout with return rollers. The rear of the turret with its overhang and visible commander's cupola also matches the Comet layout.

https://www.blhs.org.uk/index.php/head_military/world-war-ii

 

Hi Tanks and Armour

 

The reason I questioned if the Comet traveled by rail in the UK most of our railways were too narrow to take a 10 ft wide load. The photo does show Comets loaded on Warflats. I know the photo comes from the Bicester history site but is it of loaded tanks at Bicester or somewhere else , like Germany where the loading gauge is wider? Even Centurions were carried buy train in Germany. The markings on the tanks are post war.

[Trains&armour]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Hi Tanks and Armour

 

The reason I questioned if the Comet traveled by rail in the UK most of our railways were too narrow to take a 10 ft wide load. The photo does show Comets loaded on Warflats. I know the photo comes from the Bicester history site but is it of loaded tanks at Bicester or somewhere else , like Germany where the loading gauge is wider? Even Centurions were carried buy train in Germany. The markings on the tanks are post war.

Hi Clive.
You're right, it might be Germany post war, I just can't tell. I automatically assumed it was taken in  or around Bicester because of the nature of the website and the other photographs. But there's not enough information on the website or details visible  on the photograph to confirm the location.  I will try to contact the historical society and see if they know where and when the photo was taken. And if a higher resolution copy is available.

[gwrrob]

Out of interest Sierd, what’s wrong with the Cromwell mudguards.

[Clive Mortimore]

4 hours ago, Trains&armour said:

Hi Clive.
You're right, it might be Germany post war, I just can't tell. I automatically assumed it was taken in  or around Bicester because of the nature of the website and the other photographs. But there's not enough information on the website or details visible  on the photograph to confirm the location.  I will try to contact the historical society and see if they know where and when the photo was taken. And if a higher resolution copy is available.

Hi Trains& armour

 

I am not saying they didn't travel by rail in the UK, just most of the UK wasn't suitable for them to travel by rail.

 

Out of gauge loads have always been transported under special arrangements. So shipping them from one part of Britain to another could be possible if the route was cleared for a slightly out of gauge load. The movement of AFVs around the country is not something done on a regular basis.

[Clive Mortimore]

I have just noticed in the photo Sierd has posted the mud guards have been removed from the Comets, would that put them inside the loading gauge? The Churchill in front has its air intakes removed so it can travel by train.

 

The German Tiger tank had to have mud guards removed, two sets of road wheels removed from each side and then its tracks swapped to narrow transport tracks so it could fit on the German tank flats. The example at Bovington use to be missing the two outer sets of road wheels but was on normal width tracks. The Airfix model was based on the Bovington example and didn't have all the road wheels.

[TrevorP1]

Going slightly OT but when I was a lad we lived on a main road in Southampton just at the top of a hill. Army traffic was relatively frequent and occasionally there were convoys of ‘Antars’ loaded with, I assume, Centurions. When Mum shouted ‘convoy!’ I would run to the front gate. What a spectacle for a five year old as they roared slowly up the hill!

[Trains&armour]

9 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have just noticed in the photo Sierd has posted the mud guards have been removed from the Comets, would that put them inside the loading gauge? The Churchill in front has its air intakes removed so it can travel by train.

 

The German Tiger tank had to have mud guards removed, two sets of road wheels removed from each side and then its tracks swapped to narrow transport tracks so it could fit on the German tank flats. The example at Bovington use to be missing the two outer sets of road wheels but was on normal width tracks. The Airfix model was based on the Bovington example and didn't have all the road wheels.

Noticed that as well. Will invoke rule one and put a Comet on my warflat. Never liked the Cromwell much...

As to the Airfix Tiger model, It does have all it's roadwheels (Late steel rimmed type) but a lot of other details are indeed missing because they faithfully copied the incomplete example at Bovington. With some work, it still builds into a model looking like a Tiger I. Here's one I build 25+ years ago for my wargames:

 

The Tiger was indeed designed to fit on the German flatcar, but later in the war, depending on circumstances, they just didn't bother removing the mudguards and roadwheels.

[Trains&armour]

1 hour ago, gwrrob said:

Out of interest Sierd, what’s wrong with the Cromwell mudguards.

The downwards angle is too shallow, making them stick out to the rear too much. And they now end  kind of pointy, there should be a cutoff at the end. Have a look at Clive's drawings to see what I mean. Also, there should be a triangle of sheet metal connecting the mudguards to the rear. As it is, this area looks off.

[gwrrob]

16 hours ago, Trains&armour said:

I,m back!

 

 Wait till I get my hands on one....

 

 

You'd better get a move on then as we leave the EU on the 31st October and might not get them then.

[gwrrob]

3 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:

Going slightly OT but when I was a lad we lived on a main road in Southampton just at the top of a hill. Army traffic was relatively frequent and occasionally there were convoys of ‘Antars’ loaded with, I assume, Centurions. When Mum shouted ‘convoy!’ I would run to the front gate. What a spectacle for a five year old as they roared slowly up the hill!

 

Pinched shamelessly off Colin's layout thread is this rather nice shot. A SR Q1 does the honours.

 

[A Murphy]

Just to be clear, the "small US Army tanks" above are Shermans. It's difficult to tell which mark of Sherman, but from the rear profile, those could easily be M4A4s, known by the Brits as Sherman Vs, all of which were allocated to armies other than the US. Many UK Shermans, especially in NW Europe, were Vs.

 

Alastair M