whelm

Album with line drawing and some firing range photos included. https://imgur.com/a/JpHAxql Dismantled Ram turret Images from Don Allen's (8hussars) photobucket, uploaded them to imgur as photobucket causes all kinds of grief. http://s661.photobucket.com/user/8Hussar/library/?sort=2&page=1

Both features found on the Ram II as well until they were deleted. Doors first Cupola later.

More stuff from Canadian files? Again, fascinating. The one looks to be a Ram I. Of course the turret of the Lee/Grant would fit on the M3/M5, perhaps at one point they were discussing a common turret for both? Given that the Medium M3 was only ever intended as an interim medium with separate sourcing for the cast turrets they may have just decided it was an eventual dead end. Hard to say if it's a ram I or II with out seeing the front. They have the mud scrapers on that model as well for the suspension. Lee turret ring was 54 inches or 60 inches (seems to vary by source, may be down to inside of ring and outside being listed) so quite a bit bigger then the M3/M5's. but that doesn't mean a larger ring couldn't be fitted to the deck, or an adapter for the turret to fit a smaller ring.

for the M10? at one point early on the British/Canadian were referring to it as Curate https://i.imgur.com/C4vI1x6.jpg Fascinating! Great find! I don't recall ever running by "Vicar" either. Is that from one of the periodic reports of the Canadian Army in Britain? Or from the 1st Canadian Infantry Division in the Med? What was the date? So they were keeping to the ecclesiastical bent started by Bishop? Yup as they note, the sexton was approved as the decaon at first, but they learned afterwards that had already been used hence the cross out. Letter dated May 1943, in regards to a meeting in March 1943. it's all in regards to modifications they wanted done on the 25 pr. S.P. Ram or "Sexton" M36 slugger as well looks to be official

I wonder if this was even feasible for the deck size on the M3/M5 As that looks like a stuart hull with a M3 medium? turret on top + cupola.

  for the M10? at one point early on the British/Canadian were referring to it as Curate https://i.imgur.com/C4vI1x6.jpg

Oh dear, really Lindy? "It is clearly wider than the actual thing so they were lying"? Admittedly, it's only the earlier 64" turret ring version, but it is an AC4 hull and the turret ring does extend over the sides of the hull by means of the air louvres. ac4_64in_hull.jpg Where did that drawing come from? I've never seen any actual plans of the proposed AC4 before. Plans, armoured fighting vehicles at a guess. https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=382893 derp I see the last reply already posted it.

An interesting paper design that may have had a general blurb about but never had images published as far as I know. After Canada had built and tested the Ram 3.7" they went back to the drawing board and came up with a fully enclosed turret/cab design. While the Ram 3.7" was primarily an AA vehicle with the ability to do AT work, this new design was for use as assault and close support roles only, to engage ground targets. The gun saddle was redesigned, tilting it forward 3.5 degrees while removing the leveling equipment on the 3.7" this allowed it to be lowered into the hull itself. This lowered the overall height as well as increased the depression. They state it's on a Grizzly hull but the mechanics are pulled from a Ram as the driver is in the same position as the Ram/Sexton's another document states the Ram hull and the cab/turret having a 360 deg traverse. The design also featured a hinged flap on roof over the gun, which would allow it to be used as a medium artillery, giving a range of 17,150 yards which was greater then that of the sexton. 3.7" AA gun Elevation: 28 deg Depress: - 8.5 Traverse: 30 deg left, 30 deg right (could be boosted to 60 each direction in the design if felt required) Ammo: 10 round ready rack, 40 total Speed: 25 mph Height 106 inches Crew of 7 Armour values were fluid as figures were not set in stone and change date to date. The sides of the lower hull were to be reduced to 1 inch to shave weight with the savings able to be applied to the upper cab. These figures are from the drawings. Turret/Cab front: 28.575 mm Gun shield: ? Sides: 15.875 mm Rear: 15.875 mm Roof: 38.1 or 31.75 - 19.05 mm Hull glacis ? highly sloped One piece lower front from the M4 Sides: 25.4 mm Rear: 38.1 mm ? The actual drawings are very poor in quality, details are hard to read, I did my best with 10-20 mins of line tracing them in paint...so yes I know they are bad. but they give you an idea.

Yes, somewhere I think I have the comparative penetration values derived from the postwar Navy tests at Dahlgren in 1947. However, the epiphany was not the penetration, it was the Navy finding the "3” M62 APC split and broke up when impacting 3” homogeneous armor plate at 30°and 60°obliquity at velocities up to 2,900 feet per second. On examination, the projectiles exhibited variable hardness with soft spots at the nose, contributing to the failures. However, Navy 3” Mark 29-2 AP projectiles did not shatter." On top of that, while the Army Ordnance did react to there own, earlier tests in 1943 to improve the hardness specifications for 90mm AP that resulted in the (too late for the war) development of the AP T33, no effort I know of was made wartime to improve the specifications for 3" M62 APC or 90mm M82 APC. Nor did it seek to solve the problem with premature firing of its BDF found in the Showburyness tests of May 1944. Instead, Army Ordnance went with HVAP as the solution and ignored its problems. They did have development programs for a number of weapons to improve general APC design over the war. 75mm APC T29 redesign of M61 around spring/summer 1944 Objective of increasing the wall strength to the rear of the driving band, 75mm APC M61 is being redesigned with a narrower explosive cavity and smaller fuze seat. Gave better penetration then standard M61. Design of shell near identical to 3" T17E1 so testing halted while work was done on that. as the relatively low velocity 75mm is going out of fashion, project was terminated in 1945. 3" APC T17 redesign of M62 Project to improved performance of the M62. Reduced diameter and increased length of explosive cavity. mechanical failure in shell body resulting from peculiarities in heat treatment from one manufacturer, an investigation was instituted but project ended up being closed 1945 90mm APC M82 trial of M68 B.D. fuzes A trial happened at Aberdeen on 3rd June 1944 to verify accuracy of British report on fuze failure in 90mm APC rounds. a number of rounds were tested at various velocities to simulate ranges against a 4 inch plate at 30 degs. One partial failure out of 9, the rest functioned fine. APC M82 increased performance Original intention to achieve MV of 2850 f.s. using M2 propellant, had to change when excessive erosion using M2 propellant observed. A switch was made to M1 powder giving a velocity of 2800 f.s. with high density loading required for propellant ignition difficulties with M23 primer resulting in switching to T33 primer, T33 was thought to be mechanically weak and not standardized resulting in T36 primer. Penetration of homogeneous armour at 30 deg at a range of 2100 yds. is claimed to be increased from 3.7" to 4.25" as a result of increase in velocity from 2650 to 2850 f.s. summer 1944 APC T25, T25E1, T26, T27, T28, T28, T35 and T39 Designed with the aim to improved the performance of the M82 against 4" and 5" plate at 30 and 20 deg. Only the T26 was better then the M82 against the 4" plate possibly due to it's greater weight. Against the 5" plate all designs were superior except the T27 compared to the M82. The T35 was a 24.1 lb AP projectile fitted with a ballistic cap similar to that used on M82. T25 was redesigned (T25E1) with single radius ogive but having a bump/knob on the nose of the cap in order to provide same thickness of cap formerly used with the blunt nose T25. T35 and T25E1 ammo batch produced with W.D. 4370 steel and given modified heat treatment to give extreme hardness at the point tapering towards the base, firing tests showed inferior performance to M77 Conclusion reached that a solid shot would give overall better results leading to the design of the T39, a solid round with tracer and light weight cap and high hard-ability steel. Design had very hard nose and bourrelet tapering off to hardness of 45 Rockwell C at the base. Batches produced with both hard and soft caps. T39 round designed essentially for the defeat of heavy homo plate at steep angles without sacrificing performance against lighter face hardened plate.

useful, but came to late for designed purpose Skink As German air-power late in the war was almost non existent it never was used for it's intended role, but it did quite well in ground support roles, especially chewing up dug in infantry in buildings.

ops, lol must have been blind, did not see it when reading the thread.

Canada's anti tank rifle training video by Disney is always good for a laugh

Canadian Airborne sp 6 pdr https://imgur.com/a/opMnF