Valcartier Sherman

[Michael R.]

Originally Posted by Dan Martel

PS: The cone on the muzzle of the machine gun was not the BFA. It was a part of what kept the barrel air-cooling shield secure to the gun.
Cheers,
Dan.

I believe James was correct: it is the BFA replacement of the Ball round muzzle attachment. Normally painted yellow, similar to other Canadian issue small arms BFA’s, it was used with a cartridge stop (discriminator) to prevent a Ball round being introduced but also to reduce the receiver space due to the reduced length of the 30-06 Blank cartridge.

Do I see a small portion of the C1 SMG BFA showing?




Ed: I suggest these are Reg Force troopers ... a point towards Reg Force use of the M4A2E8.

[rob love]

I concur it is a BFA on the M1919. The hole is way too small for a 30 cal or 7.62 barrel bearing for live fire. As well, if you blow the photo up a little you can see the radial gas ports at the base of the BFA along with the front wrenching feature. I have never seen a barrel bearing on a M1919 that looks like this one for anything but blank fire.

[Ed Storey]

Originally Posted by Michael R.

I believe James was correct: it is the BFA replacement of the Ball round muzzle attachment. Normally painted yellow, similar to other Canadian issue small arms BFA’s, it was used with a cartridge stop (discriminator) to prevent a Ball round being introduced but also to reduce the receiver space due to the reduced length of the 30-06 Blank cartridge.

Do I see a small portion of the C1 SMG BFA showing?




Ed: I suggest these are Reg Force troopers ... a point towards Reg Force use of the M4A2E8.

Was the Regular Force still using Shermans in 1967, which is when the photograph was taken.

[Michael R.]

I believe there is a group (of us) on MLU Forum who were taught to “never pass a fault”. That concept does not appear to have universal acceptance.

While viewing other Ex-CF M4 gate guards from this 76mm Wet storage with HVS Suspension family, I see the same error on “Hussar” at Beechwood Cemetery, Ottawa has crept onto the Régiment de Hull tank. Or vice versa, not sure who was first !

Is it an example of a fault being accepted as correct then repeating itself?

.

[David Dunlop]

On the photo in Post #33, there is a “XX-XXX” Registration Number on the front hull, just below the barrel.

Can that be used at all to ID this Sherman and who was operating it in 1967?

David

[Michael R.]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

Was the Regular Force still using Shermans in 1967, which is when the photograph was taken.

Great point. Accepting the event is 1967, the Sherman group with painted up turrets and loaded with blank, are they Reserve guys heading out to play silly bugger as OPFOR (was that “Phantasia” (sp) at that time), or Sherman’s that remained available on base and were used for such training ?

Harold Skaarup, Maj. (ret’d) wrote:
“ After the first batch of the new tanks went to the RCD at Camp Borden 1946, another 30 went to the LdSH at Camp Wainwright, Alberta in March 1947. Training on the tanks by the LdSH was also conducted at Camp Sarcee in Alberta, and at Camp Petawawa when the RCD moved there in the spring of 1948.”

[Ed Storey]

Originally Posted by Michael R.

Great point. Accepting the event is 1967, the Sherman group with painted up turrets and loaded with blank, are they Reserve guys heading out to play silly bugger as OPFOR (was that “Phantasia” (sp) at that time), or Sherman’s that remained available on base and were used for such training ?

Harold Skaarup, Maj. (ret’d) wrote:
“ After the first batch of the new tanks went to the RCD at Camp Borden 1946, another 30 went to the LdSH at Camp Wainwright, Alberta in March 1947. Training on the tanks by the LdSH was also conducted at Camp Sarcee in Alberta, and at Camp Petawawa when the RCD moved there in the spring of 1948.”

I don't have the photograph caption and we can speculate all day as to the date and place; but back to why I posted the image, which was why no MGs mounted in the Shermans?