:: Community Forums ›

#16: Re: 3 churchills Author: Jinx, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:46 am
----

- L.Delsing

Hello Jinx,
Were is this Conqueror (and Cent in the background) located??

Regards,
Lesley

I am sorry, i have absolutely no idea. The website -

home.freeuk.net/armour.../fv214.htm

- just has the photos, and no information.

There is a second page -

home.freeuk.net/armour...fv214a.htm

- that shows some close-ups, including of the suspension.

(Main page = www.armourinfocus.co.uk/indexfb.htm )

Maybe someone else will recognize this museum.....?

#17: Re: 3 churchills Author: palic,

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:04 am
----
Well, I think the number and the size of Churchill wheels is somehow connected with its ability to survive after mineblast damage... The track is really thick and when blasted off one "bogie" could be changed and till that moment tank is able to move forward without any special problems.
The configuration of Churchill - I mean these side sponsons provides extra space to relatively narrow hull
To the question on location of Centurion and Conqueror - this seems to be located somewhere at the milbase doesn't it (wire fence + Concertina wire)? May these tanks be gatekeepers?
I can remember Chieftain in Aldershot for example..
The pics of Conqueror driven through muddy terrain were taken in Duxford IWM I am sure, so could these gatekeepers be located there (not at the main entrance to the museum)? Maybe they were taken at the "backyard" gate of IWM Duxford?

#18: Re: 3 churchills Author: L.Delsing,

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:06 pm
----
Thanks!
Wild guess, maybe the gateguards are in the Salisbury plain area.

Regards,
Lesley

#19: Re: 3 churchills Author: Jinx, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:13 pm
----
In the third picture on the second page ( home.freeuk.net/armour...fv214a.htm ) a traffic sign is visible through the tracks of the tank. It is too blurry to read, but maybe someone can recognize the layout/nationality?

Another sign is visible in the sixth picture. Can't read it, but it looks military.

And the surrounding countryside looks British to me. Salisbury is definitely a possibility.

Guesses?

#20: Re: 3 churchills Author: T13b1(be), Location: belgium

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:57 pm
----
In fact the conqueror is a gatekeeper at RAC ranges at Castlemartin in Wales. The tanks hull number is either 41ba03 or 41ba22. All of it depends when the picture was taken because the conqueror was replaced by the second ( which was saved from the shootingrange ) . The first is again put back in running condition.
I have found this in the book " conqueror " by Rob griffin ( ISBN 1- 86126-251-5)
regards

#21: Re: 3 churchills Author: L.Delsing,

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:09 pm
----
In the past (1999) we sometimes go there for gunnery training. At the entrance of Merrion camp there were also a Churchill and a Leopard 1.

Are these still there?

Regards,
Lesley

#22: Re: 3 churchills Author: T13b1(be), Location: belgium

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:22 pm
----
Sorry, all the info I have comes from this book where I had seen the photo so I can't tell any more about the site.
Regards

#23: Re: 3 churchills Author: Jinx, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:06 pm
----
Mystery solved.

The first set of photos were taken at RAF Duxford (where they also have a Conqueror ARV).

The gate guardians - Conqueror and Centurion - are at the main entrance to the Castlemartin Range in Pembrokeshire, Wales. The road running by the gate is the B4319.

(I e-mailed the webmaster of the site where i found the photos. Since all photos were taken by him or his father, i think this information passes the reliability test.)

#24: Re: 3 churchills Author: palic,

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:09 pm
----
Bull's-eye!!!

#25: Re: 3 churchills Author: bsmart, Location: Central Maryland

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:18 pm
----

- T13b1(be)

In fact the conqueror is a gatekeeper at RAC ranges at Castlemartin in Wales. The tanks hull number is either 41ba03 or 41ba22. All of it depends when the picture was taken because the conqueror was replaced by the second ( which was saved from the shootingrange ) . The first is again put back in running condition.
I have found this in the book " conqueror " by Rob griffin ( ISBN 1- 86126-251-5)
regards

I believe Rob Griffin was a semi regular contributer to the 'old' discussion group, does anyone know if he made the move or is he AWOL?

#26: Re: 3 churchills Author: bsmart, Location: Central Maryland

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:58 pm
----

- Jinx

- bsmart

The Churchill was the last in the line of 'Shelled Ground Tanks' which goes back to the original Heavy Tanks of WWI. The long track length was meant to give it a good trench crossing ability combined with the ability to support infantry assaults across heavily shelled ground.

Well, i guess in the Churchill's case, any suspension is preferable to no suspension.

The larger wheels and longer travel suspension systems used by other tanks in WWII, Whether it was torsion bar, Christie, Volute spring suspension or some other were needed on those tanks because of the higher speed of the modern 'cruiser' tanks. The Churchill wasn't fast (neither was its ancester the Matilda) It's max speed was 15 MPH with a crosscountry speed of about 8 MPH. At those speeds it didn't need a complex suspension.

Soooo.....since it was never intended to go fast, they designed it so that it couldn't go fast? (I wonder how many committees it took to come up with that plan.....?)

The Centurian was the first of a new line of 'Universal Tanks' that combined both the Infantry and Crusier tank line. I never thought the Conquerer had that small of wheels. And it did have a torsion bar suspension. The Churchill had small individual coil springs at each wheel station.

The following webpage has six photos of Conquerors. Maybe it's because it is so large a tank, but those wheels do look rather small to me.

home.freeuk.net/armour.../fv214.htm

But maybe it's just me.

I am leaving on a trip early in the morning so I'll be out of touch for a week. So if I don't respond to a thread you'll know why.

I hope you have a good trip!

Back from the trip, flew to Las Vegas (Didn't win big enough to retire or buy a tank museum) Went to the Grand Canyon and a couple other tourist sites, flew back on a FULL Southwest flight with a 3 year old kicking the seat in front of me and/or screaming for the entire 4.5 hour flight.

About the 'Since it wasn't supposed to go fast they made a suspension that couldn't go fast' idea. (since I don't want to try and figure how to interject replies with quotes)

I look at it differently. Any design is a balancing act. High speed suspensions are more complex (and there for harder and more expensive to produce) so if a vehicle will not need the capability why design it in? Once the design criteria for the Churchill was set the design team created a vehicle that met those criteria and did so in the most efficient manner. I have also assumed that production resource availability played some part in the design (after all it used commercial Bedford bus engines) and the smaller springs were probably easier to produce or more readily available than were the larger higher capacity springs needed for Christie suspensions (The high speed suspension used in the cruiser tanks of the same era)

I sometimes think that when we look back at the WWII era not enough emphasis is put on the production and logistical factors that played into the decision of creating the weapon systems of the time. Many look at the individual tanks and make statements such as 'The U.S. couldn't build a tank to compete with the German Tiger or Panther' or they give a condescending smirk about the Grant/Lee because it had the main gun in the hull.

What these narrow views don't take into consideration was the intense competition between competing priorities that the planners of all nations faced. What good does it do to build a fleet of heavy tanks that can take on anything in the world if there isn't enough shipping to get it to the battle zone. Or if there aren't enough escort ships to keep the transports from getting sunk enroute. So decisions are made based on assumptions and capabilities that ned up affecting battles that take place months or even years later. It is easy to look back and say 'The U.S. should have fielded a heavy tank with a high velocity 90mm gun' when looking ath the campaign in Northwest Europe in hindsight. But when planners were looking ahead in early to mid 1942 and seeing ships being sunk faster than they could be replaced in the North Atlantic, or seeing the Naval casualties in the Pacific it was more important that a balanced production system be implemented. This sometimes meant that equipment that was 'adequate' instead of 'optimal' was provided.

And yes there were mistakes made. Did we need all the Battleships and Aircraft Carriers that were built? What about the thousands of aircraft and tanks that were declared surplus without ever being issued out of the depots? The counterpoint was the ammunition shortage of late 1944 caused in part when Congressional pressure at seeing how much 'wastage' there was sitting in dumps when the North Africa Campaign was over caused production to be cut back in late '43/ early '44 only to find the pipeline emptied out once the Campaign through France and the Pacific campaign got rolling in high gear in mid'44

#27: Re: 3 churchills Author: Doug_Kibbey, Location: The Great Satan

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:32 pm
----

- bsmart

flew back on a FULL Southwest flight with a 3 year old kicking the seat in front of me and/or screaming for the entire 4.5 hour flight.

Bob,
Somehow, I'd imagined that you were a lot older. Laughing

...know what you mean, though...some of those full flights make me want to scream too.

#28: Re: 3 churchills Author: bsmart, Location: Central Maryland

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:37 pm
----

- Doug_Kibbey

- bsmart

flew back on a FULL Southwest flight with a 3 year old kicking the seat in front of me and/or screaming for the entire 4.5 hour flight.

Bob,
Somehow, I'd imagined that you were a lot older. lol

...know what you mean, though...some of those full flights make me want to scream too.

chug

Very Funny. No he was in the seat in front of me and everytime he kicked the tray table flopped down (Note to self carry a roll of duct tape when travelling. can be used to hold tray table in place or restrain/silence other passengers)

Is duct tape on the 'restricted items list?

#29: Re: 3 churchills Author: Doug_Kibbey, Location: The Great Satan

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:07 pm
----

- bsmart

- Doug_Kibbey

- bsmart

flew back on a FULL Southwest flight with a 3 year old kicking the seat in front of me and/or screaming for the entire 4.5 hour flight.

Bob,
Somehow, I'd imagined that you were a lot older. lol

...know what you mean, though...some of those full flights make me want to scream too.

chug

Very Funny. No he was in the seat in front of me and everytime he kicked the tray table flopped down (Note to self carry a roll of duct tape when travelling. can be used to hold tray table in place or restrain/silence other passengers)

Is duct tape on the 'restricted items list?

If it is, it shouldn't be. Makes you wonder about a lenth of wire and two short sticks, in those cases where the parents make NO attempt to manage the child.... Rolling Eyes

#30: Re: 3 churchills Author: jch_in_uk,

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:37 pm
----

"pretty rare early Churchill Mk.I (A 22) probably?? with 40 mm gun turret mounted and 76,2 mm hull mounted howitzer"

I think this vehicle is the one that used to reside in the children play area at the old Museum of Army Transport in Beverley. It was in a bit of a state in those days and I'm not sure how original it is.

JH

-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next :| |: Page 2 of 3