Tony Cane Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 One possible reason for reversing the turret is that if the gun overhangs the chassis front then unloading on a steep ramp would possibly ground the muzzle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 19 minutes ago, Tony Cane said: One possible reason for reversing the turret is that if the gun overhangs the chassis front then unloading on a steep ramp would possibly ground the muzzle. The guns were not particularly long on a Cromwell. Though may be they had a simple rule which said if gun overhangs the bow then traverse rearwards. On the other hand, Comets did have long guns but they equally had a travel lock on the rear deck too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Cane Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 2 hours ago, JSpencer said: I found this interesting photo: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=DB99658AD4EAD0686416D77DB690CDE2DD739171&thid=OIP.mcNF2TLwAVrXarU8_9ligwHaFD&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.iwm.org.uk%2Fciim5%2F296%2F462%2Flarge_000000.jpg&exph=546&expw=800&q=war+flat+cromwell+tank&selectedindex=15&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,6 I The tank on the left of the picture is actually on a USA Flat car. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted September 23, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 23, 2019 52 minutes ago, JSpencer said: The guns were not particularly long on a Cromwell. Though may be they had a simple rule which said if gun overhangs the bow then traverse rearwards. On the other hand, Comets did have long guns but they equally had a travel lock on the rear deck too. Could the turrets be reversed to at least minimise the ingress of steam loco exhaust? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium stephennicholson Posted September 23, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 23, 2019 On 21/09/2019 at 22:12, truffy said: Also the barrel of the cannon needs to be hollowed out. The paintwork could do with being made less 'plastic'. And, strictly speaking, IRL tanks were held in place with blocks and shackles, not magnets. Looking at the photo JSpencer posted shows the barrel sealed with something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 1 minute ago, stephennicholson said: Looking at the photo JSpencer posted shows the barrel sealed with something? More likely, barrels would be covered for transport, not sealed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium stephennicholson Posted September 23, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 23, 2019 1 minute ago, truffy said: More likely, barrels would be covered for transport, not sealed. either way, it means I dont have to try and drill it out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, stephennicholson said: either way, it means I dont have to try and drill it out! But you might need to model a cloth cover. Either way, as it is it's wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 10 hours ago, stephennicholson said: Looking at the photo JSpencer posted shows the barrel sealed with something? For transport and when not in use, it was common to seal the muzzle of a gun with a 'tampion'. This was to protect the weapon and in particular its rifling from water and dust. Steam engine soot would not really have been an issue compared to mud etc the tanks actually experienced. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 15 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said: Could the turrets be reversed to at least minimise the ingress of steam loco exhaust? Steam engine soot would not really have been an issue compared to mud etc the tanks actually experienced. The worst danger was facing sea water when they went across to channel to debark at Normandy! All sorts of seals and covers had to be prepared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, JSpencer said: For transport and when not in use, it was common to seal the muzzle of a gun with a 'tampion'. This was to protect the weapon and in particular its rifling from water and dust. Steam engine soot would not really have been an issue compared to mud etc the tanks actually experienced. RAF aircraft in the Middle East theatre used to have the machine gun/cannon ports covered with a piece of cloth whilst taking off. I was looking the other day at a photo of a Beaufighter taxiing in Malta, and the wing gun ports were scarcely visible. I wonder how they calculated how strong the material needed to be, as the bullets/shells had to penetrate it. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, Fat Controller said: RAF aircraft in the Middle East theatre used to have the machine gun/cannon ports covered with a piece of cloth whilst taking off. I was looking the other day at a photo of a Beaufighter taxiing in Malta, and the wing gun ports were scarcely visible. I wonder how they calculated how strong the material needed to be, as the bullets/shells had to penetrate it. Nice post, but there was no risk of penetration failure. The bullets leave the guns at around 800 metres a second. The material would need to be 3/8ths of inch steel before any there was any risk of failing to penetrate it. A bit of cloth is negligible. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted September 24, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Fat Controller said: RAF aircraft in the Middle East theatre used to have the machine gun/cannon ports covered with a piece of cloth whilst taking off. I was looking the other day at a photo of a Beaufighter taxiing in Malta, and the wing gun ports were scarcely visible. I wonder how they calculated how strong the material needed to be, as the bullets/shells had to penetrate it. During WWII, the RAF armourers were instructed to tape over the gun ports in the wing after reloading to stop debris and water (which will ice up at altitude) entering the gun barrels on take off, especially if there’s a mass formation and jamming the mechanism. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Got my hands on the WW2 one today, on first glance I agree with comments about it looking a little disappointingly toy like compared to other military offerings with a considerably cheaper price tag, will check it out properly when I'm home from work tonight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 If you turn the wagon very slowly and gently the magnets hold... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, GreenGiraffe22 said: If you turn the wagon very slowly and gently the magnets hold... Useful for those Down Under.... Seriously though, the tank doesn't look as bad in that photo. Maybe it's the lighting. I'll have to see one in the flesh. Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted September 24, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 24, 2019 Although I’ve repainted mine in the wrong Humbrol drab, khaki instead of olive, it really does improve the look by doing it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 The Churchill that usually sits on the corner of my layout with a downed Me 109 fits quite well 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john dew Posted September 25, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2019 6 hours ago, gwrrob said: Although I’ve repainted mine in the wrong Humbrol drab, khaki instead of olive, it really does improve the look by doing it. What did you use to remove the transfers? Did they come off easily? Regards John 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Quick running video last night with some other military bits and pieces, my layout has been a little neglected lately but I'm moving out soon (hopefully, if mortgage companies would just do the damn job they're paid to do.) and the layout is for now, staying behind with Mum & Dad =( 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted September 25, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2019 9 hours ago, john dew said: What did you use to remove the transfers? Did they come off easily? The star put up a bit of a fight John but it might have been because I was using Microset instead of the correct Microsol to remove it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkirby Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 On 24/09/2019 at 22:36, GreenGiraffe22 said: The Churchill that usually sits on the corner of my layout with a downed Me 109 fits quite well Hi, I believe that on a Churchill the air intanks on the side of the hull would be out of gauge, they were either swung up onto the top of the hull or completely removed for rail transportation. I cannot remember which. Regards, Neil 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, neilkirby said: Hi, I believe that on a Churchill the air intanks on the side of the hull would be out of gauge, they were either swung up onto the top of the hull or completely removed for rail transportation. I cannot remember which. Regards, Neil Normally removed. The tank in the photo is an Airfix kit of a Mk VII and are separate fittings. The kit is old with lots of errors, the most noticeable the inclined rim at the based of the turret. Matchbox do a MkIV AVRE which is better. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkirby Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, JSpencer said: Normally removed. The tank in the photo is an Airfix kit of a Mk VII and are separate fittings. The kit is old with lots of errors, the most noticeable the inclined rim at the based of the turret. Matchbox do a MkIV AVRE which is better. Off topic warning! Don't mention AVREs! About 6 years ago I built a lovely AFV club kit of MkIV AVRE in 1/35th, I have the same make Bobbin still in the the box. But what really sends shivers down my spine is the 70's memory of my attempted a conversion of a Tamiya MkVII to a MKIV AVRE bridgelayer, by following an article in Military Modelling magazine. The actual conversion did not go too bad for a 15 year old. I also attempted to build the SBG bridge, which ended up in a warped and tangled mess of plasticard! I still have the bridgeless conversion up in the loft somewhere. The bridge eventually went in the bin, but still gives me nightmares! Regards, Neil 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted September 29, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 29, 2019 (edited) I have recently purchased an example of this model with a Cromwell tank. One question, should these wagons have jacks fitted to the underneath of the buffer beams? Edited September 29, 2019 by PhilJ W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now