MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > GENERAL WW2 TOPICS > The Wireless Forum

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 19-02-24, 15:41
Johnny Canuck Johnny Canuck is offline
Geoff Truscott
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 158
Default

"The 'F' rod diameters didn't change,"

Not.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...945%20Pg.4.jpg

ZA 0894 No.1 49.5" long 3/8-3/8 diameter both ends male/female
ZA 0895 No.2 49.5" long 3/8-1/4 diameter at ends male/female
ZA 0896 No.3 49.5" long 1/4-1/8 diameter at ends male/female

I've also seen a 'battle' aerial 4'+- 3/8(1/4??) male base 1" 1/2 long with balance 1/8 rod 3/16 ball on top.
There are probably other variations around.

Actually that is why a WS38 has 2 or 3 adjustable holes to insert aerial rods.

Geoff
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 19-02-24, 17:32
David Dunlop David Dunlop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,391
Default

Jack, that American M10 aerial looks suspiciously like a High Frequency item from their extensive line of signals equipment. They did not make much use of the 19-Set, so an installation point for a B-Set aerial on their M10's would likely be irrelevant to the crew. The B-Set was for inter vehicular communication between tank crews at VERY close range. For a Commonwealth M10 crew, it would probably not take too long for them to realize with open turrets, it was likely far easier to yell or hand signal intensions to adjacent crews.

As for the turret traverse causing aerial damage from the gun barrel, that also may not have been a serious problem. the M10 turret, if I recall correctly, was manual traverse only with a 360 degree travel rate on the order of 80 to 90 seconds. Pretty slow.

I think the M10. both 3-inch and 17-pounder, also had longstanding issues with either gun being too heavy for the turret and several attempts at counterbalancing were made throughout the service life of the M10. If the vehicle was traversing a slope, there was serious risk the turret stops could fail and the weight of the barrel suddenly swing the turret to face the low side of the vehicle. Not good for crew moral.


David
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 19-02-24, 19:15
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck View Post
"The 'F' rod diameters didn't change,"

Not.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...945%20Pg.4.jpg

ZA 0894 No.1 49.5" long 3/8-3/8 diameter both ends male/female
ZA 0895 No.2 49.5" long 3/8-1/4 diameter at ends male/female
ZA 0896 No.3 49.5" long 1/4-1/8 diameter at ends male/female

I've also seen a 'battle' aerial 4'+- 3/8(1/4??) male base 1" 1/2 long with balance 1/8 rod 3/16 ball on top.
There are probably other variations around.

Actually that is why a WS38 has 2 or 3 adjustable holes to insert aerial rods.

Geoff
That wasn't what I meant.

The original "Aerial Rods, 'F'" were 48 inches long and there were a set of three rods which could 'stack' into the then new Aerial Base No.8 for vehicle use. No.1 was the lowest, No.2 was the 'middle' and was swaged down to the same diameter at each end so that two could be used, and No.3 was the top and generally tapered to a point.

They allowed for a 16-ft aerial to be constructed (1 x No.1, 2 x No.2, 1 x No.3) for static use or as part of the 34-ft Steel Vertical Aerial, but tended to come apart when used on moving vehicles.

The Canadians solved that problem, extending the length by 1.5 inches and rolling a coarse thread into the extension. (So they were still compatible with the previous version but could be pushed together and then screwed home to prevent the shaking causing them to separate and be lost from moving vehicles. Aerial Base No.10 Mk.1 was developed to replace Base No.8, with a wing-nut operated clamp instead of the earlier spring wire clip. (This was later replaced by the No.10 Mk.2 with a terminal added to the clamp so that the aerial could be fed from the top _or_ underside, and wire aerials could be used (Aerial, 100-ft, No.5) that didn't need a plug to mimic an aerial rod.

Those rods became (and remained) the standard from WW2 up until the end of CLANSMAN and its replacement by the BOWMAN range of Combat Net Radio. The rod diameters remained the same even with the introduction of a standard 1 metre length (Metric!) with Clansman, and GRP aerial sections.

During WW2 the 'F' rods were also used with manpack sets, e.g. WS38 Mk.2 which had its own set of 4 rods: 1,2 & 3 for 4, 8, or 12-ft (only really used for static operation), and a "Battle Whip" referred to as '3B' by the Artillery consisting of a spring steel rod welded/brazed into a steel plug to make it compatible with the No.3 rod. (It was a _serious_ eye hazard, being small diameter and very rigid - I protect the end with a cork if I need to use one.)

There were other lengths of 'F' rods for various purposes, but 1, 2, 3 and 3B are the most common ones.

Loading the poor old infantry with a quiver of 4-ft aerials was decided to be a bad idea, so the WS38 Mk.3 was issued with Aerials 4-ft No.1 and No.2 - a pair of folding 'F' rod numbers 2 & 3 equivalents that were threaded on a wire and could be carried in the backpack (Satchel, Signals, No.10) with the set and ancillaries. The 12-ft option was discarded.

(The WS 62 got a folding 14-ft whip and the two 4-ft folding rods in Case, Aerial Rods, No.5, which could be fastened to the set for easy carriage.)

I think that's enough of my waffling for tonight. :-)>

Chris (G8KGS)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 21-02-24, 01:59
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Gentlemen, thank you for the continued interest on the subject.

First time I have ever seen mention of a 'battle' aerial, intrigued.

Am not aware of Americans ever using British/Commonwealth radio systems and vise versa in their respective vehicles. If there was something in my postings that seemed to be contrary to this, my apologies.

For the gun weight issues, this was addressed on the M10 by adding a purpose made wedge shaped weight directly to the turret rear. The 17pdr had an additional weight problem as the breech was heavier than the barrel. This was solved by adding a counterweight at the front of the gun barrel. When in travel mode the gun was suppose to be secured in place via the gun lock/cradle located on the rear deck.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 21-02-24, 11:19
Jakko Westerbeke Jakko Westerbeke is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dunlop View Post
the M10 turret, if I recall correctly, was manual traverse only
Correct, the traversing wheel almost directly operates on the rack mounted in the hull, around the turret opening see the TM. No traverse rate seems to be indicated in the manual, though.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 21-02-24, 14:58
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Thank you Jakko for that manual link.

The Dennis Oliver publication also does not mention the speed at which the turret could be rotated by hand, but was certainly a disadvantage of the design. Wiki footnotes on the M10 attribute Steve Zaloga giving approximately 80 seconds to rotate the turret a full 360 degrees.

About the sloped terrain effects on the function of the vehicle, Dennis Oliver only mentions it made it difficult to rotate the turret when parked on a slope of more than four degrees. This problem was the main reason for adding weight to the turret rear. Initially the counterweight was about 3700 pounds. When a new turret was designed to afford more space to the crew, a new counterweight was also introduced and was lighter at 2500 pounds.

Last edited by Jack Geratic; 21-02-24 at 16:33.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22-02-24, 07:31
Bruce MacMillan Bruce MacMillan is offline
a Canuck/Brit in Blighty
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hell Fire Corner, Kent UK
Posts: 702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Geratic View Post
Am not aware of Americans ever using British/Commonwealth radio systems
Apparantly the US Marines were issued 500 WS19 MKII sets for use in light tanks though not very successfully.
Attached Thumbnails
ww2marines.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22-02-24, 15:50
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Alright Bruce, I stand corrected for making a generalized statement. Though am still unaware of Americans using British wireless in their M10s.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22-02-24, 18:25
Bruce MacMillan Bruce MacMillan is offline
a Canuck/Brit in Blighty
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hell Fire Corner, Kent UK
Posts: 702
Default

Not meant to correct you Jack. Just pointing out one of those oddities you run across. I think the US focused on FM technology (SCR300, SCR508/608) for armored comms. The Brits (& Commonwealth) stuck to AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
M10 Achilles sight dial Mark Robinson The Armour Forum 4 09-04-22 13:56
Heads Up: 1942 Achilles Tank and much more MV's Patrick B For Sale Or Wanted 2 21-01-17 03:59
Achilles Harry Moon The Armour Forum 21 05-11-16 07:12
M10 Achilles parts Roy Aalderson The Armour Forum 1 13-06-10 17:58
17pdr Achilles DaveCox The Armour Forum 16 03-03-03 00:34


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:09.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016