[jim]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Same goes for the Centurian. I have no idea why they have them down south. I guess it helps keep the peace.
- Shawn

Could do with a few around here on Saturday nights!

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Yes the Centurion is a great tank, noone denys that. With regards to Isreali Shermans. The point there is, the M4 in some form or another is still in use there. And some have been sold to a South American nation for use. So it still soldiers on.
- Shawn

The main factor is that there were so many Shermans made during WWII, and those that the Germans didn't blow up, ended up in wrecking yards after the war. Which is where the Israeli's got them from, and no I'm not making this up.

[MoMo]

Scrap for a scrap!

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

The main factor is that there were so many Shermans made during WWII, and those that the Germans didn't blow up, ended up in wrecking yards after the war. Which is where the Israeli's got them from, and no I'm not making this up.

I can honestly say I've never heard that story before. Perhaps that is the where the Frenchies got them to sell to Isreal. Funny though, if the Germans destroyed so many of them. Where did all the MAP ones come from?? The Isreali versions held there own when it mattered, even if it wasn't the preferred tank when compared to the M48s and Centurions.
- Shawn

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

I can honestly say I've never heard that story before. Perhaps that is the where the Frenchies got them to sell to Isreal. Funny though, if the Germans destroyed so many of them. Where did all the MAP ones come from?? The Isreali versions held there own when it mattered, even if it wasn't the preferred tank when compared to the M48s and Centurions.
- Shawn

I've seen the story about their first Shermans being obtained from junkyards in a few books and in this link it specifies it being an Italian junkyard (4th paragraph): http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo.../Sherman_.html

I believe France later sold them about 50 Shermans most likely being ex French WWII issues that were surplus when France decided to produce its own weapons.

France also supplied barells for upgunning the Shermans but as it had such a small turret ring there was a limit to the size of weapon it could carry.

Speaking of the Sherman's relatively small turret ring, I read in a book about the War in the Pacific (of all places) that during most of WWII, US industry could only manage production of a turret ring of that size. I know nothing about manufacturing and it seemed a bit odd but maybe it was true.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I've seen the story about their first Shermans being obtained from junkyards in a few books and in this link it specifies it being an Italian junkyard (4th paragraph): http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo.../Sherman_.html

I believe France later sold them about 50 Shermans most likely being ex French WWII issues that were surplus when France decided to produce its own weapons.

France also supplied barells for upgunning the Shermans but as it had such a small turret ring there was a limit to the size of weapon it could carry.

Speaking of the Sherman's relatively small turret ring, I read in a book about the War in the Pacific (of all places) that during most of WWII, US industry could only manage production of a turret ring of that size. I know nothing about manufacturing and it seemed a bit odd but maybe it was true.

The first Isreali Shermans to be up-gunned, the M50s had a modified 75mm. Some say copied from the German Panther. To fit the larger breech and allow for recoil the turret rear was modified. Same deal with the M51 and the T23 turret. But both turret rings are 69 inches, so I don't think that was the main issue as much as the gun being too front heavy. This would cause the turret to be off kilter on certian slopes.
Same issue was seen with the M-10 tank destroyer. That is why the additional weights were mounted on the turret rear. It keep the turret balanced on slopes preventing the gun from spinning around because the front end was heavier.
I looked through Hunnicutt's Sherman and Pershing books to see if there was any mention as to why a 69 inch turret ring was choosen. Nothing jumped out. Though I suspect that it had to do with rail and bridge restrictions of width and weight. The Pershing tank really stretched those limits as most bridges and rail facilities couldn't stand that wide tank.
I'll have to check on turret rings for the M47/48/60 and M1A1 to see if it got larger in time. But 69 inches keeps the turret well within the hull of a Sherman and Pershing, and keeps it from being top heavy. Thats my guess. I'm sure something larger could have been cast by US foundries, but once a standard...
- Shawn

[Shawn 507]

Turret rings update:
From Hunnicutt's Patton book
M47 Turret Ring Diameter (Inside): 73 Inches
M48 Series Turret Ring Diameter (Inside): 85 Inches
M60 Series Turret Ring Diameter (Inside): 85 Inches
The M60 and M1A1 may have the same diameter, but still looking.
- Shawn

[jim]

good stuff.

[MoMo]

All that Shawn says sounds familiar. When you think about all the problems that various armies had in Europe when it came to transporting heavyweight AFVs by road and rail, and how rail gauges and bridging had to be altered to suit them, it does throw up enormous problems which have to be addressed by any AFV designer who has to try to take these parameters into consideration.

Not far from here, on the River Clyde, we have a gigantic railway crane which used to load locomotives onto ships which would transport them to the far reaches of the Empire. It is about 40 years since it wa last used for this purpose. The area which surrounds it has been transformed from industrial use to ultra-modern apartment block Land, but the giant crane lives on, sitting there as a monument to a long-gone industry.

When last, someone asked why it was still there, and had not been dismantled and sold for scrap, the " official " reply was :

" The crane cannot be dismantled because it is the only crane which will bear the weight of
a Challenger Tank when such vehicles have to be loaded on to ships on this part of the river
in an emergency situation. "

There are dozens of such cranes further down the river, and dozens of them in shipyards which lift hundreds of tons a day when they are doing their job of helping to build ships.

My best guess is that someone laid down a directive 50 years ago about the transportation of tanks, and no-one has yet rescinded it!

It could only happen in Britain!

[jim]

Mo ,that sounds like a cool piece of history, plus I love those big old machines. Keep it well painted and looked after so future generations will know that once many years ago Great Britain was a great engineering nation.

Mo just think how many of those great men where Scots born and bred.