Coldsteel

Hmmm ... It was drivable when it was at the Melbourne Tank Museum, I guess sitting outside for ten years at the MVTF didn't do it any good, and then being packed full of sandblasting grit by some boat builder. Yeah I'm not surprised things are stuck and/or crunchy. I don't think I'd be trying to turn the engines over under those conditions as if any of that abrasive has snuck into places it should not have... And are there 6V jump starter kits like that? We will see how it goes, but I have a small feeling of dread.

Either or. In some, and probably most, cases it'll be armoured as the material specified makes that clear, and others the material appears to be only mild steel.

Many years ago there was this TV programme, about collectors or something. One of the was a wine guy, he said something interesting that stuck in my head. He was the type to have one of every year. He said something to the effect of you can pretty much always get the good vintages, you just have to throw money at it, it is the lesser years that can be much harder to come by. The individual history of a 30 ton vehicle that never reached the battle field but instead was used to pull down trees to clear land to grow crops, is never going to be as popular or attention getting as come see Monty's command tank, but it is what actually happened. Strangely enough, or maybe not, seeing an artifact showing all that expended effort to make something to obliterate your fellow man but not actually having used it, gives me a little hope. YMMV

Bit of a mixed bag. If we take the M3 Mediums as an example they go to the trouble of putting modifications on one tank that didn't have them, them go and cut off the mods that another tank to "back date" it, only not go all the way as they're keeping the heavier duty suspension even though they have the other type in their junk yard as they pulled the wrong springs out of those for the first tank. Then had to go back to get the right springs. They also found they had parts there that they spent time to fabricate. Then when the correct power plant falls into their possession rather than re-evaluate and use the real engine, they stick with the modern engine to meet a self imposed deadline for their armour fest. It seems to me that at times they will make more work for themselves to achieve a lesser result. Some sort of proper inventory system might help. It's OK if you just want an armour theme park and drive the tanks around. If they want to call it a museum I'd expect more focus on history. But their its property so they can do what they want.

Obviously it should be a Punch Card.

It is one of those annoyances in life that that sort of thing is really hit and miss. Having said that, for the Sherman, is this any good for you? https://grabcad.com/library/sherman-tank-3 Gina has also got some on the Stuart too.

Yeah, sort of. But you're not supposed to know about that one, so no. They'd recognised the utility of the portee so like everybody else set about figuring out how to mount a 2 pounder on a tracked chassis. A whole bunch of ideas and experiments later, the end product was a longer new built hull using LP2 components and a custom drive line to put the engine up front near the driver, featuring a fully traversable 2 pounder gun on the rear. Much the same hull was then also used to make a 3 inch mortar carrier, with the mortar sitting lower in the hull on a turn table to enable it to be fired from the carrier, and the sides built up for ammo stowage. Which is a bit hard to find good photos of as it apparently was no longer an army requirement and all 400 are supposed to have been shipped to the Nationalist Chinese. The mortar is not drawn but should be on the circle behind the folding crew seat in the back

Well that's disappointing. Especially after they have Darrin on and praise him for freely sharing info with them, he's a good bloke he even took a few measurements of his LP1 for me so I could build a model or two correctly.

Possibly the Weald Foundation? At least I hope so, it'd be nice if the restoration process is documented and shared.

The hatch is the rusty square with the cross bars leaning against the front. But no, not common as far as I know.

A12 Matilda ... and that's about all that comes to mind. I think the Churchill might have some sort of little hatch on the underside, although that might be some half remembered ARVE modification for something, mine clearance, or charge laying maybe.

I just think you should know that I'm very jealous right now.

Mark 5 Tank Driver's Handbook, courtesy of the AWM: Source page PDF Link

Try "Preliminary report no 10 Russian KV-1", it should bring up a few links, like: https://blogkazamata.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/preliminary-report-no-10-russian-kv-1-1944/ Generally, it is fairly complementary.

Looks like the Mark 1 or 1/1?