Com-Central.net

Jinx · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:52 am Post subject: Up, Up, and Away!

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:29 am Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

Hi Folks!

I wonder how bad the crew was hurt when that Cromwell landed? Surprised

I also wonder if anything broke when it hit the ground? Shocked

Interesting photos, thanks Jinx!

Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

Dontos · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

I love 'air' shots. That has always amazed me. Even when I have participated is such a manuever.

Did it hurt?...... I'm sure it didn't tickle!!

If he lands 'square' it shouldn't be too bad. He appears to be fairly level.

rough landings tend to throw you around in the turret, thats when you get a bit 'bruised up'.

Even with modern suspension, one tends to get 'minor' bumps. Dislocated shoulders, compressed spine, twisted ankles or knees, dental 'difficulties' Shocked

....AH THE LIFE OF A TANKER!!! Wink

Cool photo!!

JeffStringer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 637

I always enjoyed watching the old footage of the M2 and M3's flying over mounds of dirt and land as though nothing had happened ... yeah, right!

Cool pix!

SFC_Jeff_Button · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

I've never heard of a "Cromwell". When and where was this taken? Does that number on the nose tell us anything?, looks like a USA#?

David_Reasoner · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

- SFC_Jeff_Button

I've never heard of a "Cromwell". When and where was this taken? Does that number on the nose tell us anything?, looks like a USA#?

British "cruiser" tank in service from 1943 til Korea. Forerunner of Comet and Centurion. WW2 service was mainly with 7th Armored Division in Normandy and beyond, also with armored recon battalions of other UK armored divisions. Very fast (Christie suspension), armor protection roughly comparable to Sherman, 75mm main gun fired same ammunition as Sherman 75mm. The number plate on the nose appears to be a civil registration number, so I'm guessing the shot was taken at a postwar military display (hence the "Cromwell" tag to help the public identify the vehicle?).

David

Jinx · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

I do not have the caption for that photo, sorry. But i think it only said that the tank was a Cromwell - not really necessary because of the big sign that says CROMWELL on the side - and that it was rather fast and agile. I have read reports saying that this tank moved and handled like a sports car. Pretty decent power-to-weight ratio with that big old Meteor engine in the back.

If you look closely at the far right of the photo you can see a crowd of people watching. So it's certainly possible that this was a post-war demonstration.

Any ideas why the turret hatch is open?

(Maybe the commander figured out what the driver was about to do, and he bailed out!)

David_Reasoner · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

- Jinx

I have read reports saying that this tank moved and handled like a sports car. Pretty decent power-to-weight ratio with that big old Meteor engine in the back.

Early models were good for 40mph. Surprised

Later (and heavier) models were governed down to 32mph to improve drivetrain and suspension component life expectancies. Not bad for a 1942-43 medium tank design. Unfortunately the Cromwell still came up short in protection and firepower departments, at least when compared to the competition.

David

palic · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Mar 03, 2006 Posts: 172

This is obviously a post war shot not only due to crowds watching the show. The registration number is postwar too (for instance 43AX27, white lettering on black background).
I have a pretty similar experience with a bit newer stuff - "flying" BMP and BPzV Svatava.
Approx. 15 years ago when I acted as an armoured recce coy cdr, we arranged a series of "unofficial crosscountry ability tests" for our vehicles. BMP-1 was able "to fly for a distance of 2 - 2,5 lengths of its hull at speed about 50 kph from a terrain "step" 75 - 100 cm high. There was no serious problem with "landing" especially on "soft" ground (no concrete panels, just a dry ground), the drivers enjoyed "piloting" their sweeties, no torsion bars were broken.
The experience of "flying vehicle" commander could be a bit different and really painful, especially in the case he does not expect the "take off" action.
We used to move our vehicles from the barracks to the remote training area during the night, driving them in convoys headed and followed by wheeled vehicles with flashlights.
When entering the training area wheeled vehicles continued their movement on the roads and we were on our own. It was a good chance for our drivers to speed up ...
It was a November night with lots of stars in the sky and with a thick layer of snow on the ground. We all were nearly frozen and just about to fall asleep... My BPzV driver did not see there were three huge holes on the downhill track and we "went airborne" at pretty high speed. Just for explanation - the holes dimensions were pretty close to "hull down size trenches"... Mr. Green

We jumped

over the first hole and I was suddenly awaken Shocked

flying above my vehhie, with intercom cable disconnected and shouting to driver SLOW DOWN YOU BL..DY BAS..RD through the roaring engine...
We continued flying over the second hole but I have to say the hull bottom/front armour has hit the third hole. The driver was OK - he expected the impact... Cool

What to say more - hope you can imagine how painful was the landing of my body on the vehicle - my ba..ls were nearly smashed Mad

and I have seen more and more stars at that moment.
Fortunately the layer of snow acted as a thick soft pillow and my vehicle was not damaged....

Jinx · Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

Were there any crew in the back? From what i understand about the BMP series of vehicles, the crew compartment doesn't have a lot of headroom. Going airborn couldn't be a lot of fun for the "passengers", i'm guessing.

Dontos · Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

- palic

The experience of "flying vehicle" commander could be a bit different and really painful, especially in the case he does not expect the "take off" action.

Palic

I have had several bruised ribs, TCing the Abrams, with an over eager driver who loved to 'pull air'.

The TC (or loader) hatch ring is ones worst enemy. The 'OOUUUFFF' factor. The pain is gauged by how loud an 'OOUUUFFF' the TC or Loader exclaims when his chest is compressed into the hatch.

Body armor has greatly helped protect the turret crews ribs, from such a fate.

palic · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Mar 03, 2006 Posts: 172

To Dontos and Jinx:
Yep, definitely it could be said there is not enough headspace in the rear compartment of BMP-1. It is divided into two parts along the sidewalls. It provides space for four sitting bodies with full gear on each side (L and R) Ã¢â‚¬Å¾or for six coffins (three each side)Ã¢â‚¬Å“ as we used to say... Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Hard hatÃ¢â‚¬Å“ or soft black padded tankers helmet with intercom helps very much during crosscountry rides. Imagine, there are no indivdual seats, no safety belts but two long low benches in the BMP-1 rear compartment. One man only could sleep there comfortably on each sideÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
The recce squad (belonging to recce coy, armoured cavalry bn) consisted of six men only (instead of eleven men in the mechanized rifle squad): commander, driver, main armament gunner-operator, leading scout and two junior scouts so the guys had enough space in the rear compartments. Scouts in the rear compertment werere sitting left/right shoulder forward. That was pretty similar case like with M2/3 family vehicles Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a lot of extra equipment for recce variant inside, but still enough space for living...
When speaking about BPzV Svatava the situation is a bit different. All the crewmen (commander, driver, main armament gunner-operator, scout-wireless operator, scout-navigator and scout-target acquisition radar operator) have their individual seats and no safety seatbelts again, they are sitting "face forward". The inner space of vehicle is filled with extra equipment (lots and lots of stuff) and all the crewmembers have their own soft black padded tankers helmet with intercom. No problem to be there (inside) when the vehicle Ã¢â‚¬Å¾is flownÃ¢â‚¬Å“ in the air Ã¢â‚¬â€œ simply because there is not enough space to be shakenÃ¢â‚¬Â¦even in the case the hull hits ground.

And I have forgotten to add: Sir, yes, sir, all the crewmembers were on board.... just to keep weight balance of vehicles...

Jinx · Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

Any idea what the rationale is for not having safety belts/harnesses?

Dontos · Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

- Jinx

Any idea what the rationale is for not having safety belts/harnesses?

SEATBELT?.....IN A TANK?.....What the heck is that?

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: Up, Up, and Away!

- Dontos

- Jinx

Any idea what the rationale is for not having safety belts/harnesses?

SEATBELT?.....IN A TANK?.....What the heck is that?

I'm sorely tempted to delete those posts before NHTSA or some congresscritter see's them. Wink

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big