Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, petethemole said:

The "American Heavy" appears to be the M6, announced in 1940 but cancelled after only 40 produced, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_heavy_tank.

 

I suspect you're right. The turret is complete fantasy, but below that there is some resemblance to the M6. 

 

Your Wiki link says "The project was first publicly disclosed in August 1940 when the Army awarded Baldwin Locomotive Works in Pennsylvania a $5.7 million contract for the production of 50 tanks. The Army envisioned building 500 of this type. The first T1E1 was delivered to the Army in December 1941. From 1941 to 1942, three prototypes were built". 

[drmditch]

11 hours ago, Northroader said:

Damme, sir, we kept the bally huns out back in the forties with armoured trains, eh?

I'm sure I read somewhere that the army couldn't cope with the complexities of the RHDR and smashed the interlocking to run trains where they thought they should run.

[drmditch]

Weren't some British tanks constructed in railway workshops?

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

Now that was a fast paced veering off to the subject of tanks. The Tank Regiment would be proud of such manoeuvrability.

 

However just to change the subject back to something previously mentioned which is armoured trains. I really have never seen the point of these. All one needed to render them useless was a well placed shell or two, or an aerial bomb on the track, or a well placed shot through the boiler and they then become just a conspicuous target with no chance of escape from destruction. I can understand the use of protection on a train if it is operating behind the lines for transport or supply but for any offensive or defensive purposes they are quite useless.

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Talltim said:

He's turning right

That tank's broken down so he's hailing a taxi.

[Hroth]

8 hours ago, drmditch said:

Weren't some British tanks constructed in railway workshops?

There was the Covenanter cruiser tank (Cruiser tank Mk V / A13 Mk III Covenanter) which was, according to Wikipedia, designed by the LMS.  Over 1700 were built and it was used in training and Home Defence roles but never taken overseas, mainly because it was completely rubbish. A description I read in one history of the RTR was that it was "crude". It was built initially by the LMS, more were constructed by English Electric and Leyland Motors.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanter_tank

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Hroth
spelin and piccy

[RedGemAlchemist]

...I have no idea about tanks, but I am making a pair of Predator tanks for my Space Marine 40K army.

[Compound2632]

I'm quietly waiting for this to get back in period but in the meanwhile, to at least be pre-Grouping, I'll chauvinistically point out that the standard tank-carrying wagon, the "rectank" was designed by the Derby C&W drawing office. 

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm quietly waiting for this to get back in period but in the meanwhile, to at least be pre-Grouping, I'll chauvinistically point out that the standard tank-carrying wagon, the "rectank" was designed by the Derby C&W drawing office. 

Is the name descriptive?

[Edwardian]

Back in period ...

 

The Royal Navy takes to the rails in 1882, part of a successful attempt to Keep Egypt British ....

 

(subsequent attempts to Keep the Sudan Egyptian did not go quite so well).

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

Is the name descriptive?

 

Yes. Railway Executive Committee tank wagon. Rated to carry 35 tons. There were also the 40 ton Warflats built by the Leeds Forge Co, but I don't know where those were designed.

 

44 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Back in period ...

 

The Royal Navy takes to the rails in 1882, part of a successful attempt to Keep Egypt British ....

 

Are there any other instances of 6-wheelers being used in armoured trains?

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Compound2632

[Fat Controller]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes. Railway Executive Committee tank wagon. Rated to carry 35 tons. There were also the 40 ton Warflats built by the Leeds Forge Co, but I don't know where those were designed.

 

 

I wonder if the Leeds Forge wagons were a clone of an American design; the wonderfully-named Samson Fox (great, great... grandfather of the Fox acting family) had spent some time in North America, where he had been involved with developing the pressed-steel 'fish-belly' underframe. These were a feature of the Warflat, which in WW1 was code-named the 'Parrot'.

 

 

[Compound2632]

My information is chiefly from LNWR Wagons Vol. 2. When the Warflats were being developed, because of the secrecy surround tanks, the drawings were named variously: Hanyang Type, Soulth African Type, Machine Wagon. Leeds Forge had the contract so maybe did the design work. They built 250 Parrots, 97 South African Type - known as Poll - and six of the longer Hanyang Type. I'm wondering if the Parrot and Poll names were a reference to the Tank Corps' depot being near St Pol. 

 

After the war, the North Western bought 25 Warflats and the Midland had lots - 412 being listed on the LMS diagram which doesn't seem to square with the number built by Leeds Forge. The design was re-used with variations in the next war.

 

As for the Rectanks, 200 were built, mostly at Derby, 40 at Swindon, and some by the L&Y. They were sold off after the war, with 40 going to each of the North Western, Midland, Great Western (the ones they'd built), and at least some others to the North Eastern.

[webbcompound]

Re the "well aimed shot through the boiler" the whole point of the armoured train was that it was, how shall I put this, armoured. Before tanks there was no land based anti-armour artillery, or anything serious in the way of bomber aircraft,   Here is a pre-grouping armoured train, used in the UK. Built at the LNWR Crewe works. The loco is a GNR tank, the armoured vehicles are built on sundry NER and GWR chassis, and I'm fairly confident it was supposed to operate along the East  coast, so maybe even visiting Castle Aching.

Edited May 18, 2019 by webbcompound

[Edwardian]

26 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

Re the "well aimed shot through the boiler" the whole point of the armoured train was that it was, how shall I put this, armoured. Before tanks there was no land based anti-armour artillery, or anything serious in the way of bomber aircraft,   Here is a pre-grouping armoured train, used in the UK. Built at the LNWR Crewe works. The loco is a GNR tank, the armoured vehicles are built on sundry NER and GWR chassis, and I'm fairly confident it was supposed to operate along the East  coast, so maybe even visiting Castle Aching.

 

This is sound reasoning re the shot in the boiler.  Pre-Great War, the army would not have been equipped with armour-piercing shells. Presumably this applied to most armies.

 

British field batteries would have been equipped with high-explosive (HE) shells.  These were probably air-burst shells, fused to explode before ground impact in order to maximise their effectiveness.  Pre-tank artillery had, after all, been designed to kill people and horses. 

 

The first armoured opponent on the battle-field was imaginary; H G Wells's Martian Tripods. The difficulty of bringing one of these down with conventional army ordnance is clear from the description Wells provides.

 

An armoured train is, thus, relatively well protected.  My issue with them is the vulnerability of the infrastructure upon which they depend, not least the permanent way.

 

Tanks were specifically invented to be mobile across ground that had no infrastructure capable of supporting any other type of land vehicle.  The true significance of the tank is, thus, not its arms or armour, but it's 'off-road' capability. 

 

EDIT: I'll add that our only indigenous armoured trains seem to have been designed for coastal defence. These do make sense because they were designed to operate on land not yet accessible to enemy forces.  Navies had, of course, armoured their ships and, so, had developed armour-piercing rounds. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Edwardian

[brack]

I think it might be more successful aesthetically than the unarmoured version of the N1. Somewhat lacking in elegance compared to worsdell or Robinson.

As for railway works involvement in tanks, the Churchill tank (or parts of them) was built by beyer peacock, BRCW and metro cammell.

[James Harrison]

So, protect the coupling rods (and by extension the driving wheels) but leave the trailing axle relatively open?  I can't help but feel that might have proven an Achilles heel if it had ever seen action. 

[petethemole]

I reckon that skirt "armour" was probably intended to protect the coupling rods and bearings from small arms fire; the bullet fragments and lead splash could easily get into bearings and damage them. It would not be very effective against a direct HE hit or a hit on the rails or trackbed under the loco which would possibly break or dismount a wheel.

[ChrisN]

8 hours ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

...I have no idea about tanks, but I am making a pair of Predator tanks for my Space Marine 40K army.

 

Now that is what I call a tank!  Not sure if it was that one my sons had, two at least plus a heavy gun.

[Hroth]

3 hours ago, webbcompound said:

Re the "well aimed shot through the boiler" the whole point of the armoured train was that it was, how shall I put this, armoured. Before tanks there was no land based anti-armour artillery, or anything serious in the way of bomber aircraft,   Here is a pre-grouping armoured train, used in the UK. Built at the LNWR Crewe works. The loco is a GNR tank, the armoured vehicles are built on sundry NER and GWR chassis, and I'm fairly confident it was supposed to operate along the East  coast, so maybe even visiting Castle Aching.

 

You can see where they got the outline for the Pilot Scheme "Type 1" diesels from!

 

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

An armoured train is, thus, relatively well protected.  My issue with them is the vulnerability of the infrastructure upon which they depend, not least the permanent way.

 

 

Too right - the whole thing looks like a rail-crusher...

Edited May 18, 2019 by Compound2632

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

14 hours ago, webbcompound said:

Re the "well aimed shot through the boiler" the whole point of the armoured train was that it was, how shall I put this, armoured. Before tanks there was no land based anti-armour artillery, or anything serious in the way of bomber aircraft,   Here is a pre-grouping armoured train, used in the UK. Built at the LNWR Crewe works. The loco is a GNR tank, the armoured vehicles are built on sundry NER and GWR chassis, and I'm fairly confident it was supposed to operate along the East  coast, so maybe even visiting Castle Aching.

 

 

Not quite true about the effectiveness of the armour of the period. The first British tanks were armoured in what was first considered to be effective protection. However like many military advances their deployment revealed that while many projectiles from small arms and also small shrapnel did not penetrate the armour the tanks and their crews were casualties of the process of spalling.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spall

 

This occurs as that page shows when while the actual projectile does not penetrate the armour, the shock wave created by its impact does which causes flaking off of the internal surface resulting lethal sprays of high speed metal particles. This was such a problem that the tank crews had to be issued with forms of body armour especially around the face and eyes -

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30013368  

 

This spalling was also sufficient at times to destroy engines etc. I imagine that this threat would have also applied to the crew cabins of armoured locomotives which would have therefore been quite sufficient to disable them. Also Edwardian is quite right when he cites the infrastructure as the principal weakness. All a determined enemy had to do was lift some track sections and set up an ambush and the armoured train would have been rendered impotent.       

[wagonman]

Should we perhaps differentiate between two types of 'armoured' train? In the case of the heavily armoured variety used on the East Coast of England, the purpose would seem to have been to deploy a gun that could be set up anywhere there was a railway line, the accompanying soldiers being for the operation of the gun as much as its protection, whereas the much more lightly armoured trains depicted by James were used for the rapid deployment of troops in a colonial skirmish – he quoted Egypt and the Sudan, though one could add the wild west of America perhaps – where the railway line, though vulnerable to sabotage, was the only means of communication.

 

[Donw]

Dreadful news of a model railway show smashed up by vandals at Stamford. It would be heartbreaking if it was your stuff.

 

https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/photos-of-the-damage-vandals-broke-into-stamford-welland-academy-9070669/

[Edwardian]

31 minutes ago, Donw said:

Dreadful news of a model railway show smashed up by vandals at Stamford. It would be heartbreaking if it was your stuff.

 

https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/photos-of-the-damage-vandals-broke-into-stamford-welland-academy-9070669/

 

That is truly dreadful. Cruel and heartbreaking. Wanton destruction I can never understand.