Why Gun Tractor Shape

[Mike Cecil]

Lang,

To be fair, the AWM were not the originator of the furphy about the shape being for gas decontamination, but made the error of quoting an otherwise reputable source without checking or thinking about it. The origin, as far as I can make out, was as indicated by this post in another MLU thread:

"Reference to the design shape is contained in a Mechanisation Board minute featured in Ventham and Fletcher’s Moving the Guns : the Mechanisation of the Royal Artillery, 1854-1939, p81...."

And I agree with you: just because an individual is in the employ of the AWM (or any other military oriented museum) does not mean he or she has a sound knowledge of military matters or history.

Mike

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

The origin, as far as I can make out, was as indicated by this post in another MLU thread:

"Reference to the design shape is contained in a Mechanisation Board minute featured in Ventham and Fletcher’s Moving the Guns : the Mechanisation of the Royal Artillery, 1854-1939, p81...."

Here is a cross link to the relevant posting in the thread AWM acquisition?.

Thanks for bringing that source up again, Mike.

HTH,
Hanno

[rob love]

Reading that link, I would say it is a mis-interpretation by the author. Here I have copied the relevant part:

A clue to the origin of the curious "beetle shape of the guy ant, and other quads, is contained in the Mechanization Board report for 1939 which states:
"To permit decontamination, an all metal body to the Chief Superintendent of Design's was fitted, involving an increase of weight of 17cwts"

Thus, the characteristic shape of these vehicles was born of the need to be able to wash down the vehicles to rid them of chemical contamination......

Now if you take away the author's interpretation of that, here is the actual line from the Mechanization board report:

"To permit decontamination, an all metal body to the Chief Superintendent of Design's was fitted, involving an increase of weight of 17cwts"

My un-learned view of that line was that they previously had wood in the Chief Superintendent's design of the body, or that the Chief Superintendent of Design has changed the design to get rid of the wood. Note that in the photo of an early Guy Ant on the previous page, the body was made of wood. Wood, being porous, does not lend itself well to decontamination, so they instead changed the design to all metal, which made the bodies heavier.

The author of that book, I believe, has made a mistake in his interpretation, and that interpretation has been blindly repeated and accepted for fact. Using the word "thus" in his leap does not make it fact.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by rob love

Reading that link, I would say it is a mis-interpretation by the author. Here I have copied the relevant part:

Now if you take away the author's interpretation of that, here is the actual line from the Mechanization board report:

"To permit decontamination, an all metal body to the Chief Superintendent of Design's was fitted, involving an increase of weight of 17cwts"

My un-learned view of that line was that they previously had wood in the Chief Superintendent's design of the body, or that the Chief Superintendent of Design has changed the design to get rid of the wood. Note that in the photo of an early Guy Ant on the previous page, the body was made of wood. Wood, being porous, does not lend itself well to decontamination, so they instead changed the design to all metal, which made the bodies heavier.

The author of that book, I believe, has made a mistake in his interpretation, and that interpretation has been blindly repeated and accepted for fact. Using the word "thus" in his leap does not make it fact.

Rob, I fully agree with your line of reasoning!

H.

[rob love]

Further to my last, note the excerpt mentions an increase of weight of 17cwt (roughly 1904 pounds in today's measurement). Sloping the back of a box would reduce weight, not increase it. Changing a wooden box to steel , however, could well increase the weight. Thus , ( ) this supports my reading of the sentence as to mean it was referring to the conversion of the previous wood design over to an all-metal design.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by rob love

Further to my last, note the excerpt mentions an increase of weight of 17cwt (roughly 1904 pounds in today's measurement). Sloping the back of a box would reduce weight, not increase it. Changing a wooden box to steel , however, could well increase the weight. Thus , ( ) this supports my reading of the sentence as to mean it was referring to the conversion of the previous wood design over to an all-metal design.

Rob, I think you've just added forensic linguist to you resume.

[Mike Cecil]

Well done Rob, I think your interpretation is spot on: a mis-reading of the original intent of the quote.

I cannot say every fact in my books is 100% correct, either (or any technical history book, for that matter): blunders like that by authors are bound to occur, but we all do our best to bring other enthusiasts the fruits of our original research. I did a book review for SMH recently about the Aust WW1 Centennial History, and felt I had to point out a significant error by a well-respected historian, so it can happen to the best researchers/authors as well.

Thanks Hanno - my ability with cross linking etc is non-existent!

Mike