Jump to content

Coldsteel

Members
  • Posts

    764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tasmania, Australia
  • Interests
    Tanks. What were you expecting, Underwater Basket Weaving?

Recent Profile Visitors

357 profile views

Coldsteel's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. The "Tank Attack" bit is real, Mike Cecil has a nice wall of text about it, I just don't know how common that usage actually was given its absence in the material available to me. The manual doesn't use it, the data plate riveted to the actual vehicle doesn't use it, and that tallies with what Mike wrote that when asked "What do you want these things called?" the Army did not reply "Tank Attack" or anything similar, so how wedded to that can they have been? And then they went back to "anti tank" when the war was over anyway. According to the army, for a period of time, yes that was a carrier for a 2 pounder tank attack gun. The AAAM sometimes appear a bit puzzled by what they have in their possession, and I'm pretty sure they copied some of the text on their exhibit display boards straight off Wikipedia, they might have grabbed the 2pdr carrier info somewhere off the web too?
  2. "Bring up the PITA!" Could be, the anti tank equipment nomenclature did change from one to the other. I thought I had a pdf of a manual for it, but I can't seem to find it so I might be misremembering, but I've only seen first hand material that looks like this: but I've never laid eyes on anything official that used the "Tank Attack" variation for that particular vehicle.
  3. I've never climbed into it but even standing next to one and even knowing it is possible for an average person, I just got mental images of having to fold your knees the wrong way, and err, no I don't want to do that. Also that wasn't an LP2, the full title for which is something like Carrier, Machine Gun, Local Pattern, No. 2, or 2A if it had the other axle. It fits between the LP1 MG carrier, 160 or so built, and the LP3 MG carrier, which was experimental only. The 2 pounder carrier, being something other than a local pattern MG carrier, is usually just identified as Carrier, 2 Pdr (Aust) or Carrier, Anti-tank, 2-pdr (Aust). I believe it may have had a "tank attack" variation like all the other anti tank weapons at the time to place emphasis active aggression against AFVs, like the PIAT being Projector, Infantry, Tank-Attack, in Australian use.
  4. Well I've never heard of anyone surviving an attack by one, so ...
  5. Yeah we do, the pouched weasel.
  6. Well while it pre-dates the US use, the Australian experience with its cruiser tanks was that the Cadillac engine, being an automobile engine, produced more torque at a lower rpm and had a wide power band than the radial engines under consideration. I've been told drivers who had previously been operating M3 tanks were pleasantly surprised they found they didn't have to make quite so many gear changes as was required to keep the radial engine in its best rev range, and with the V8s could open the throttle more and it would just go. Ultimately, and despite looking at a number of different radial engines and other types, they went and placed large orders for enough Cadillac engines to cover the entire cruiser tank programme production and spares. This was aided by the fact that at the time no one else wanted Cadillac engines for tanks and so there was no competing demand. Cadillac actually seems to have given the Australian government a very good deal on the things. Drinks like a fish but will run on low octane fuel. Puts the drive shaft down low, so it's easier to put in a tank. It is heavy, but it's just a good engine for its day.
  7. M3 Medium turned into a safe control point for ATGM test launches. Keswick barracks, South Australia.
  8. 1943 Newsreel "Iron Cavalry" on the Australian cruiser tank and its production: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C188537 Shows the tanks being driven over the test track.
  9. It was made, which kind of takes it out of running for "tanks which never roller". There was some experimentation done with a lengthened 25pdr, but the ordnance that ended up in the production vehicles was a standard piece, with a different recoil system. The pilot production AC3 tank. The production line after the tank project ended, down the left side behind the 3-4 AC1s are a dozen or more partly assembled AC3 tanks, and a fairly complete one too near the centre behind the AC1 turrets. I think the M3 medium tanks are there because quite a few of them arrived from the US in an incomplete or unfinished state, lacking things like the commander's cupola, for which a replacement set of hatches had to be made locally and it looks like that's what these ones might be being fitted with.
  10. The Australian War Memorial has started putting 3D scans of some of its items online. Of interest is Jeffrey the Robot Tank, think of it as an ocker version of a Goliath. 3D Gallery here: https://www.awm.gov.au/3dtreasures/ Jeffrey: https://www.awm.gov.au/3dtreasures/items/jeffrey/
  11. True, but that kind of thing strays into NSFW territory.
  12. 'dunno, I think in this day and age transportation to such an inhospitable and desolate place is probably some sort of "humans right violation", or "cruel and unusual punishment", death might be kinder than being sent to Huddersfield.
  13. Well, Ok, I'll give it my best shot. Two goldfish are in a tank. One says to the other: “Do you know how to drive this thing?” At long last, the product of First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill's Landships committee sets sail. ... it was only at this point that he realised the term "fish tank" could be misinterpreted.
  14. - they already know how to deal with snakes - accustomed to hot weather - it'll frighten the hell out of the kiwis being that close to a nuclear armed nation
×
×
  • Create New...