For those interested in tanks and armoured fighting vehicles

[Barry O]

Boxer works. UK MoD asked Vickers to withdraw from it and then asked BAe to rejoin when they ordered it.

 

Ajax has some very major design flaws (which is why it can't get over and 18" high step..because it can't. A 17t vehicle beefed up to 40+t is always going to fail.. gun doesn't work.. wonder if anything actually works...erm yes.. the payment system to pay money to GDLS.

 

MoD make decision based on various things but not always the right technical decisions are made (lack of technical knowledge/using "consultants" who don't have a clue...)

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

Ordinarily it'd just be an expensive embarrassment, but now the army has ended up in a position where:

 

• It's MBT has been allowed to fall behind peers because it hasn't received the necessary through-life upgrades, they've finally agreed to move forward with a complete rebuild to produce Challenger 3 but it is years away and the army will only get 150 or so;
• The AS90 gun which was a superb system in its day but which didn't get especially much in the way of through-life upgrades (as was Challenger 2, there seems to be a trend here....) is awaiting a decision its replacement and anything which might be ordered is years away;
• The Warrior upgrade has been cancelled, Warrior will be retired with no replacement, apparently the MoD thinks Boxer will do the job despite being a very different vehicle; and
• Ajax is an embarrassment waiting to be cancelled.

 

All at a time when the state of the army and its capability to fight a heavy war against a peer opponent are suddenly very relevant again after 30 years or so when heavy armoured units and artillery were seen as yesterdays thing and it was all about lightweight air/sea mobile forces and being digital.

Heads really should have rolled at the MoD and among ministers of state but it seems that things will just stagger on. 

On the 40mm case-telescope gun, that also seems to be one of those programs that generated a momentum of its own and is politically required to work even if it seems to be a very expensive re-invention of a wheel which didn't really need to be re-invented.

[woodenhead]

10 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

All at a time when the state of the army and its capability to fight a heavy war against a peer opponent are suddenly very relevant again after 30 years or so when heavy armoured units and artillery were seen as yesterdays thing and it was all about lightweight air/sea mobile forces and being digital.

Heads really should have rolled at the MoD and among ministers of state but it seems that things will just stagger on. 

On the 40mm case-telescope gun, that also seems to be one of those programs that generated a momentum of its own and is politically required to work even if it seems to be a very expensive re-invention of a wheel which didn't really need to be re-invented.

Isn't that the problem - knowing who your enemy is, whilst to most of us Russia has remained an obvious state that poses a threat no-one probably envisaged them rolling tanks and troops towards Europe.  Not to mention all those rich oligarchs laundering millions of dollars through European cities.  China is only a threat in the China sea, it can do the rest of the world economically.

 

So what you end up with are vehicles whose purpose isn't clear, trying to be all things and ends up not being able to anything brilliantly.  The UK doesn't have the military industrial complex of the USA which fires it's economy and they constantly move forward with massive spending and even they don't always get it right, but they can write it off and start again.  Over here in the UK we cut cut cut, and it's no surprise our military isn't up to scratch, our NHS isn't up to scratch, our councils run on shoestrings and people are generally a bit pi$$ed off.

[Barry O]

When we won the Contract for Challenger 2 MoD (PE) assured Vickers that they had a war chest of money assigned to allow CR2 to get the upgrades some us had identified... that didn't end well! 

 

In addition there are still things we proposed that Cr3 will not have.. another 4 years of my life wasted! Gee thanks MoD (PE)!!

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

11 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Isn't that the problem - knowing who your enemy is, whilst to most of us Russia has remained an obvious state that poses a threat no-one probably envisaged them rolling tanks and troops towards Europe.  Not to mention all those rich oligarchs laundering millions of dollars through European cities.  China is only a threat in the China sea, it can do the rest of the world economically.

 

So what you end up with are vehicles whose purpose isn't clear, trying to be all things and ends up not being able to anything brilliantly.  The UK doesn't have the military industrial complex of the USA which fires it's economy and they constantly move forward with massive spending and even they don't always get it right, but they can write it off and start again.  Over here in the UK we cut cut cut, and it's no surprise our military isn't up to scratch, our NHS isn't up to scratch, our councils run on shoestrings and people are generally a bit pi$$ed off.

 

I don't think it is even knowing who your enemy is, it is defining what the armed forces are for. If we want a defence force we could cut defence spending. Whatever people think of our neighbours politically they're not going to invade us and plenty of countries around the world with no ambition to flex any muscles exist perfectly well with minimal military capabilities. However, the British political establishment still wants the country to punch above its weight in world affairs and to be a player in global affairs as America's deputy. That requires a lot more funding if it isn't to end in comedy or tragedy. Now we are in a confrontation with Russia and effectively fighting them using Ukraine as a proxy, at the same time we are trying to get involved in Asia. Politicians basically want to play with all the toys but without buying any of those toys to play with. I think the NHS is similar, it's difficult to budget and fund something without really understanding what it does, and the NHS seems to always be the equivalent of a giant letter to santa clause.

And of course then there is the whole issue of how money is spent. The instinctive reaction of many is to blame everything wrong with anything the government does on lack of money, but it's not that simple. There are certainly budgetary issues, but how money is spent also matters. Look at the railways, its easy to say the government should spend more but how much was squandered in NR's attempt to make electrification unaffordable and the ridiculous IEP program (nothing against the 800 trains which I like, but the acquisition process was almost a text book example of how not to do it)? The MoD is chronically underfunded but they have a dreadful record in spending what money they are allocated sensibly. 

[jjb1970]

9 hours ago, Barry O said:

When we won the Contract for Challenger 2 MoD (PE) assured Vickers that they had a war chest of money assigned to allow CR2 to get the upgrades some us had identified... that didn't end well! 

 

In addition there are still things we proposed that Cr3 will not have.. another 4 years of my life wasted! Gee thanks MoD (PE)!!

 

Baz

 

Could be worse, the MoD specified the ambient conditions the Type 45 was to operate in then blamed RR, BAE and LR when the engines wouldn't work in warm water (which in some ways was unfair to warm water given that the WR21 struggled to work anyway). The MoD were advised their boundary condition was too low and it was recommended by BAE, RR and LR to go higher but the MoD is always right. Given their obsession with watching the pennies (while burning ten pound notes) they got what was demanded then tried to blame everyone else.

[jjb1970]

This is an unusual one. It looks like a Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go light tank, but is actually a working replica made for a Steven Spielberg production, in the National Museum of Singapore. It's only when you look up close that you can tell it's not an original, from any type of Distance it is extremely convincing. The Tank Museum has a couple of replicas, their A7V and the Mk.IV which they run on tank days.

The Type 95 would have been woefully inadequate to fight the German or Soviet armies in 1942 but in Malaya and Singapore it was quite decisive in the absence of enemy tanks or anti-tank defences.

 

[sir douglas]

the australian armour museum has a ha-go which they plan on making a runner

[jjb1970]

10 hours ago, sir douglas said:

the australian armour museum has a ha-go which they plan on making a runner

 

It can be quite expensive to make an original a runner as many of them were lined with asbestos. 

[Johann Marsbar]

A few from the Flying Heritage & Armor Museum in Everett, WA, taken in 2017, that might be of interest, as posted in my "40 Years of North American photography" thread on RMweb earlier today.....

 

 

 

[jjb1970]

This was sad news (but not unexpected) when it came out a few days ago:

 

https://youtu.be/S5QMywuJdIE

 

I love the Tank Museum youtube channel (and the museum itself!) and David Fletcher was great. He had a waspish sense of humour and didn't seem to see any need to worry about upsetting anyone. Nowadays those are probably seen as heinous character flaws but I always found his videos hugely enjoyable (even if I sometimes disagreed with him on stuff). However, he has been looking very old and rather frail in recent videos, I hope he enjoys life after hanging up the mic.

[Kickstart]

On 27/12/2022 at 14:09, Iain.d said:

Reverting back to the T-34. Below are a couple of images I took of a ‘destroyed’ T-34 in the former British Army ammunition depot in Ruhleben, Berlin in early 1994. The depot was handed back to the Berlin authorities on 19 May 1994. I have no idea if the hulk is still there.

 

 

 

The likelihood is that it was disabled by a Panzerfaust striking it slightly below and between the (.30in?) machine gun mounting and the driver's hatch. From memory the front armour was quite fractured and there were splits in some of the weld seams on the body. It's not the sort of damage one might expect to see from a shaped charge detonation on an armoured vehicle. It made me think the armour was poorly manufactured. But I could be wrong.

 

The suburb of Ruhleben was quite heavily fought over in the closing stages of World War Two and the woods and hills in the depot (up to the Olympic Stadium) were littered with fox holes and the detritus of battle.  We had a good metal detector and within the depot’s fence line, unearthed countless fired small arms cases and unfired rounds, German helmets, shovels, weapons and weapon parts.

 

I’m not sure if I showed these images before – apologies if I did, that said they’ve probably been ‘lost’ in the software issues earlier in the year.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

That looks like a T34/76 turret to me. If I am correct, I wonder if it is from the battle of Berlin, or an earlier tank brought back for trials

 

Maybe I should dig out the book I have on the T34 in German service!

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Clive Mortimore]

11 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

This was sad news (but not unexpected) when it came out a few days ago:

 

https://youtu.be/S5QMywuJdIE

 

I love the Tank Museum youtube channel (and the museum itself!) and David Fletcher was great. He had a waspish sense of humour and didn't seem to see any need to worry about upsetting anyone. Nowadays those are probably seen as heinous character flaws but I always found his videos hugely enjoyable (even if I sometimes disagreed with him on stuff). However, he has been looking very old and rather frail in recent videos, I hope he enjoys life after hanging up the mic.

I first came across David Fletcher through his books on tanks and disagreed with a lot of his writing. My opinion on him changed when I started to watch Tank Chats, he is a very knowledgeable man and he appears to be quite a humble person. No new episodes from him but thankfully the old ones are still viewable.

[jjb1970]

I first encountered him in the various books he did for Osprey. I found those disappointing, partly because the format is rather limiting and some of the technical aspects were questionable. However his full length book on the Churchill tank is superb and his dry sense of humour comes through. I bought the tank museum re-issued set of two volumes covering the Cromwell and Churchill (I even paid up front so got a certificate signed by David and my name in the credits) and recommend it. However I also really came to like him through his tank chats. He always seemed a very genuine chap, passionate about his subjects and I loved his dry sense of humour.

[PaulRhB]

13 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

This was sad news (but not unexpected) when it came out a few days ago:

 

https://youtu.be/S5QMywuJdIE

 

4:07 is a classic Fletcherisim

 

 

I’ve been lucky to have lived fairly close my entire life so have been a regular visitor over the years and been to many events. While I haven’t been to one of David’s chats I have had tours by other members of staff that were excellent. I think it was Chris their education officer who started a tour on a Tiger day with about 20 and ended up with around 100!

 

The chats are excellent watching and if you haven’t already found them the AusArmour series on restoration is equally as good. 
Current ‘Workshop Wednesday’ subject and one of several restoration series on the playlist. 

 

 

[sir douglas]

oz armour have recently finished a Tiger, Jagpanther and Goliath, though only to museum display standard, they are empty as they dont have the parts, though the they have set a priority on finding Tiger parts to get it running, the Jagpanther was interestign as some of the hull parts were unused since they were dug up from the site of a Berlin tank factory. they are currently working on a Stug and the above Grant, which was discovered that all the gears inside the transmission and final drives were perfect condition with only the gear stick needing work, the Stug gearbox on the other hand was a mess and took a long time to dismantle

[jjb1970]

There's been something of a re-evaluation of the Sherman in recent times. For many years the 'tommy cooker' stuff was accepted, and the version of history told by people like Belton Cooper taken at face value. While I've not looked at primary sources myself it appears it was actually a very survivable tank and with wet ammo stowage no more prone to bursting into flames than any tank. While few would claim it to be the best tank of the war (though some do) I think it's generally agreed it was an extremely reliable tank capable of moving great distances, crew ergonomics were pretty decent (the gunner had two sights, a wide angle one to help him find the target and a high magnification narrow field one for aiming, which made him much less reliant on the commander to bring him on target) and protection was better than traditionally recognized (I don't think any tank of the war of any side could take direct hits from guns like the German 75mm L70 of the Panther or any of the 88mm guns. Simultaneously there's been a more negative reappraisal of tanks like the Panther.

[Barry O]

But the UK designers did learn.. and produced the first Main Battle tank in the world.. Centurion.

Good Armour, gun upgradeable, loved by most countries.. cursed by drivers.. the gearbox was a rights0d to change gears in.

 

But.. it used a petrol engine.. unlike a lit of UK shermans which used diesels.

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

The Centurion was a superlative design, immensely influential. British tank designers of WW2 are a very maligned bunch, designs like the Matilda 2, Valentine, Churchill, Cromwell and Comet gave good service. It's fashionable to dismiss the infantry tank concept, but the Churchill fulfilled a crucial role as an infantry support tank and a lot of the critics ignore the fact that Germany developed the assault gun concept as an infantry support weapon (though later on they were increasingly used by armoured units because there were never enough tanks) and the US Army deployed a lot of its Shermans to support the infantry and had a whole tank destroyer doctrine of lightly armoured but well armed tank destroyers to serve as tank killers. And the red army used the T34 in probably every role we could think of and then some. The Churchill was heavily armoured and its low speed wasn't really an issue for working with the infantry. The Comet was an excellent tank, its armour wasn't great but it was fast and well armed, capable of killing any tank it might face at a reasonable range. However it always seems to be tanks like the Matilda 1, Crusader (which would have been a pretty decent tank if the engine arrangement had been better thought through) and Covenanter (OK, that one really did deserve its reputation....) to demonstrate how useless British tanks were. The Valentine is an odd one, built in huge numbers (very similar to the Pz.IV which was the most produced German tank of the war) and by all accounts a reliable tank which gave good service in the desert and for the red army and yet which is almost invisible in most histories. Even the canard about the lack of an effective HE round for the 2 pound gun, equivalent high velocity AT guns of its era had the same issue and it was an excellent anti-tank weapons for its day. 

[jjb1970]

I think my favourite fletcherism was in his video on the Churchill Crocodile when he offered the wise observation that flamethrowers are completely harmless as long as you don't put yourself in front of them......😳🤣

[2mm Dabbler]

On 28/12/2022 at 00:17, jjb1970 said:

One from the RAF Museum at Hendon, a Humber Mk.III armoured car, I like these.

 

That's actually a Humber Light Reconnaissance Car, the Humber Armoured Car was a very different vehicle (photo courtesy WarWheels.net):

 

[jjb1970]

Thanks for the clarification! In general it seems British light armoured vehicles such as the universal carriers, scout cars and armoured cars seemed to have a better reputation than our tanks in WW2 (notwithstanding that I do think some of those tanks were much better than generally credited with and some of the criticism unfair and unfound).

[jjb1970]

I don't know how true it is, but a couple of armoured corps officers I'm friendly with who serve in an army which operates the Leopard 2 tank told me this week there is a panic at KMW and Rheinmetall as some of their customers are having to admit to their political masters how few of those tanks are ready for deployment and in a state to be transferred should the German government agree. The type doesn't have the best reputation for spare parts availability and some operators manage the problem by breaking down tanks to get spares which is not the best way to keep vehicles in service and is quite dangerous in inflating numbers and giving politicians a false impression. 

[Clive Mortimore]

On 08/01/2023 at 03:03, 2mm Dabbler said:

That's actually a Humber Light Reconnaissance Car, the Humber Armoured Car was a very different vehicle (photo courtesy WarWheels.net):

 

The Humber armoured car built by Karrier. Both were part of the Routes group and to avoid confusion with the Carrier series of vehicles they were called Humber Armoured Cars. As we have seen only to get confused with the Humber LRC. Similar the Damiler Armoured Car and Scout Car, I have seen captions in books mixing these two up. And to add to the mix the Humber Scout Car. Why the British didn't name their own armoured cars, scout cars and light reconnaissance cars after something, as we did with our tanks and aircraft and the American armoured cars, Staghound, Dearhound, Bearhound, Greyhound etc etc I will never know?

[Roddy Angus]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Why the British didn't name their own armoured cars, scout cars and light reconnaissance cars after something,

 

There was always the Humber pig.  Did it have a real wood dashboard like other Humbers I wonder?

 

Roddy

I still miss my old Humber Sceptre, the most fun car I have ever had!