Home > Discussion Groups > Allied

Message posting guidelines:
1.

Full real names must be used at all times.

2.
A valid e-mail address must be provided. (This is not optional)
3.
Images must be posted at low resolution (72 dpi) and no larger than 760 pixels wide, and copyright/trade mark owners must be credited whenever reasonably possible.
4.

From 20 April, registration is compulsory if you wish to post messages on the Discussion Groups. For further information, please see the following message: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47208&messageid=1113823018

Please read our Community guidelines before posting.
By contributing to this discussion group, you indicate your agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use.
Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions of Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be erased, and repeated violation of this policy may result in termination of the violator's account.

Advertisement

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

M40 GMC question

November 22 2016 at 12:03 PM
Peter Schweisthal  (Login PeterSchweisthal)
Missing-Lynx members
from IP address 178.10.129.82

Hi all,

Now we have two kits of the M40 GMC, from AFV Club and from Tamiya. And both have support parts for the folded down platform in the rear: AFV gives rods, Tamiya chains.

Can anyone please steer me to photos of an M40 with either of these suspenders? And I mean of a DEPLOYED gun, not of the one in that museum that puts yellow placards in front of its exhibits.

Thanks in advance,
Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Henri-Pierre Mas
(Login H.P.Mas)
Missing-Lynx members
88.171.94.198

I guess

November 22 2016, 2:03 PM 

chains at least would be OK...

http://militarymashup.com/mmu_get_jpeg.php?074fdef3a750b54f30d86da86866d6df6

....but many period pics show no chains and no rods either wink.gif

H.P.


    
This message has been edited by H.P.Mas from IP address 88.171.94.198 on Nov 22, 2016 2:13 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Kurt Laughlin
(Login Kurt-Laughlin)
Missing-Lynx members
98.236.111.248

There were no supports

November 22 2016, 9:21 PM 

The tailgate was effectively part of the spade. It rested upon the spade frame when lowered, so no supports were needed. The cables seen in photos were attached to the spade; raising and lowering it did the same for the tailgate.

[linked image]

[linked image]

http://www.net-maquettes.com/pictures/m43-howitzer-motor-carriage-walkaround/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy7nRnVXndQ

There were locking links that held the spade up in traveling position but these were disengaged when the spade was lowered.

The chains on the Tamiya build-ups are connected to the pintles for the tailgate locking pins on the fighting compartment rear. They are attached to something on the tailgate, but they don't and can't do anything. The chains would have to be removed to raise and lock the tailgate. They probably saw the photo H-P referenced and extrapolated something from it.

The rods on the AFV Club kit attach to lugs on the tailgate that aren't there on the real thing, at least on the standardized vehicles. At the top there isn't even a lug or hole; they are just hooked behind the armor.

KL

 
 Respond to this message   
Peter Schweisthal
(Login PeterSchweisthal)
Missing-Lynx members
178.10.129.82

Thanks!

November 23 2016, 5:55 AM 

Another mystery solved - but what does it tell us that both kit makers made the same mistake?
Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
JMehner
(Login Jens_O_Mehner)
Missing-Lynx members
188.108.147.196

That references on the M40 are thin on the ground?

November 23 2016, 11:01 AM 

Or that you should not trust museum examples or bad photos even if they are the only ones available?


 
 Respond to this message   
Kurt Laughlin
(Login Kurt-Laughlin)
Missing-Lynx members
65.222.251.100

Not the same mistake

November 23 2016, 12:30 PM 

T83 S/N 1 that was at APG had staples welded onto the tailgate and rod ends connected to them for many years. There were still rods in the fighting compartment after the vehicle was refinished and the tailgate and spade lifted. Thus, the AFV Club kit may be close to the original T83 configuration. The Tamiya kit seems to be an extrapolation or assumption, much like AFV's (and many, many, modeler's) assumption that the 155mm gun and 8-inch howitzer were identical except for the projecting part of the tube.

This is yet another example of why it is wrong to judge the accuracy of Kit B based on how well it matches Kit A.

KL

 
 Respond to this message   
Bruce culver
(Login baker24)
Missing-Lynx members
97.99.1.35

According the Dick Hunnicutt's "Sherman" book, when the....

November 26 2016, 11:58 AM 

991st Field Artillery Battalion received the T83 (155mm M2) and T89 (8" howitzer) in early 1945, they converted the T89 to a 'rump' T83 by mounting another 155mm M1 or M2 gun in place of the howitzer, then later re-installed the howitzer and used both during the brief time they served in action, during the assault on Cologne. Both vehicles were sent over to Europe as part of the Cobra program that also introduced the T26E3 Pershing heavy tank to the ETO. So, at some level the two weapons were interchangeable - how much had to be replaced I do not know, but apparently the upper carriages must have been very similar to allow this kind of change in the field. As an interesting aside, a friend at the APG Museum eons ago told me that the 8" howitzer had a reputation for phenomenal accuracy, so much so that they tried to duplicate it with other calibers, but were never able to match the 8" howitzer's performance.

 
 Respond to this message   
Kurt Laughlin
(Login Kurt-Laughlin)
Missing-Lynx members
98.236.111.248

The recoiling assemblies were different

November 27 2016, 9:55 AM 

Everything from the breechblock carrier to the muzzle was a different except for the interface with the cradle. All AFV Club did was change the portion of the tube from the last hoop to the muzzle.

KL

 
 Respond to this message   
Javier de Luelmo - Diesel
(Login JavierDiesel)
Missing-Lynx members
79.108.207.99

Rods & chains

November 25 2016, 4:28 AM 

Hi Kurt, from the pics seems the tailgate was hinged to the front of the spade, but just resting freely over a couple of rollers/supports at the rear. With the spade deployed In level conditons the tailgate would remain flat, but having the spade well-dugged into the terrain would make the tailgate to tip in an angle not easy to work on. So think maybe the rods/chains were a field expedient in Korea to get the tailgate allways flat whatever the spade position?


    
This message has been edited by JavierDiesel from IP address 79.108.207.99 on Nov 25, 2016 4:28 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
Kurt Laughlin
(Login Kurt-Laughlin)
Missing-Lynx members
98.236.111.248

I don't know if that would be desirable

November 27 2016, 10:03 AM 

If the vehicle backed onto the spade such that it was in a nose down position, keeping the tailgate off the spade (via improvised supports) would place the end of the tailgate high in the air, perhaps high enough that the retractable extension could not touch the ground. I would think sloping the tailgate toward the ground would be better.

KL

 
 Respond to this message   
Javier de Luelmo - Diesel
(Login JavierDiesel)
Missing-Lynx members
79.108.207.99

Chains

November 28 2016, 4:43 AM 

Hi Kurt, good point. Maybe the spade built-in supports could be removed to avoid that? Here possibly chains more than rods are the answer to the "original" problem, as you could hook them by any link to get the length needed for whatever angle of operation.

 
 Respond to this message   
Peter Schweisthal
(Login PeterSchweisthal)
Missing-Lynx members
178.10.129.82

No need for any of these

November 28 2016, 10:16 AM 

Kurt, Javier,

The tailgate / loading platform is hinged not to the spade, but to the hull rear. In its horizontal position (i.e. in line with the fighting compartment floor), the front ends of its main braces rest against the hull rear, thus blocking any further down movement, while the spade can go independently as far as possible. The only contact/support between spade and platform is during raising/lowering of both: while the winch controls the spade's movement, this in turn will push up / hold back the platform via two small rollers on its top.
So, in my opinion, there's no need for supporting rods, chains, cables, whatever. The TM seems to share my view, as it doesn't mention any of them:

https://de.scribd.com/document/139525882/TM-9-1747-155MM-GUN-MOTOR-CARRIAGE-M40-M43

Sorry, only found this now, but hope it helps

Happy modeling,
Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
David Nickels
(Login djnick66)
Missing-Lynx members
65.33.79.222

That is also how the old Adams kit is

November 30 2016, 7:12 PM 

The Adams kit is actually pretty good for its age and the designers obviously spent some time looking at the real vehicle.

 
 Respond to this message   
Javier de Luelmo - Diesel
(Login JavierDiesel)
Missing-Lynx members
81.202.225.203

Thanks!

December 1 2016, 6:47 AM 

Far more clear now. So rods/chains must be a field expedient but the exact reason still to discover.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  


Terms and Conditions of Use
Report abuse