MLU FORUM  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-02-24, 16:42
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Question Any ideas on this Achilles wireless setup

Click image for larger version

Name:	british-troops-take-shelter-near-an-m10-wolverine-tank-v0-hhhbf12mpg4b1.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	565.9 KB
ID:	136974 Click image for larger version

Name:	3rd Canadian Anti-Tank Regiment.jpeg
Views:	12
Size:	206.9 KB
ID:	136975 Click image for larger version

Name:	d-day-british-forces-during-the-invasion-of-normandy-6-june-1944-an-m10-wolverine-3-inch-self-pr.jpg
Views:	5
Size:	184.0 KB
ID:	136976


I think on the front is something like the example in the link below. It states it was telescopic with a height of 21 inches when closed, and could be raised to 90 inches.
https://thecanadiansoldier.com/produ...-radio-antenna

Click image for larger version

Name:	m10 hull side aerial.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	58.0 KB
ID:	136977

The mast on the hull side looks much heavier - was this the standard B type aerial, but In this instance sitting atop an extension?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-02-24, 14:54
Johnny Canuck Johnny Canuck is offline
Geoff Truscott
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 158
Default

Antenna on radioman's right would be a G Rod (24") on an extension (PC 767010)(24" +-). Top would have Aerial base No.9 for the G rod and the bottom dome is rubber secured with a flat ring bolted to the extension supplied. The bottom rubber dome allowed the barrel to traverse pushing the whole thing over. The mount also allowed the G rod to clear the clutter on the upper deck.
The F Rods were mounted on a bracket behind the headlight guard on front glacis radioman's side. No.8/10 base plus required F Rods.
WS19/22 would have been mounted in hull right front as the M10 was open turret TD.

Geoff
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-02-24, 17:52
David Dunlop David Dunlop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,397
Default

The VHF signal output from the B-Set of the Wireless No. 19 was a weak one with a very short range. The extension Geoff describes as fitted to the M10 B-Set Aerial Mount enabled the G-Rod for the B-Set aerial to clear the top of all the hull and metal of the M10 turret to maximize the range for B-Set communications as much as possible in all directions.

If only the original Mount fitted to the right side hull had been used, the B-Set signals would have essentially been radiating out to the right of the vehicle and blocked to the left. Not a good situation.


David
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-02-24, 18:06
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Geoff, thanks kindly for providing insight to the Achilles subject. Now I have some follow up questions. . .

First the G Rod on the hull side. What is the detail at the top as indicated in the cropped photo below.

Click image for larger version

Name:	G rod.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	218.7 KB
ID:	136979

Found a similar looking rubber base which is described as the insulator, but maybe not the same thing as you have it being bendable if the turret/gun barrel is swung over the antenna?

Click image for larger version

Name:	Antenna Base.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	62.3 KB
ID:	136980

Now to the front antenna as the WS19/22. Suppose the main bottom portion could be 21 inch length when compared to the one located on the hull side. The diameter does not match and should be about double compared to the WS19 example found. Unfortunately cannot find a WS22 to compare with. . .
Click image for larger version

Name:	front glacis.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	327.4 KB
ID:	136978
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-02-24, 18:13
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Hello Dave, thank you for the clear explanation of why the B-Set required to be perched atop an extension.

Forgot to mention I had googled the part number PC 767010 for that extension but failed to find anything. Are there any images/diagrams known or some info on the diameter of that pipe?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-02-24, 19:29
David Dunlop David Dunlop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,397
Default

Hello Jack.

I used to have an NOS Extension in my 19-Set stuff years ago but finally sold it off as I had absolutely no need for it. It was a specialized piece of kit is seems that had no place in the late war/post war Canadian Supply System for the 19-Set.

First time I have seen one in wartime use in your photos and at that, I am very suspicious it is mounted onto a steel tube adapter sitting between the rubber base of the extension and the hull of the M10. That adapter may be unique to the circumstances of installation on the M10 and perhaps, even a field mod to make everything work.

The extension consists of a molded rubber base cylinder with a circular flange at the base, held to the vehicle by a heavy duty steel ring using four bolts. the steel tube is vulcanized onto the top of the rubber cylinder via a small steel plate welded to the end of the steel tube. The ID if the tube is large enough to feed the B-Set Connector cable through it all the way to the top. The top which you have highlighted has a steel fitting welded to it. the lower portion is a small cup, large enough to hold the B-Set Cable Connector that clips onto the bottom fitting of the Aerial Base No. 9. The top part of this cup is identical in appearance to the tops of any of the steel post style mounts for the Aerial Base No. 9. That is, it has been machined to the correct OD and depth for the bottom of the Aerial Base No. 9 to sleeve down over it once the cable is in place and be fastened to the top of the extension with the four standard screws set at 90 degrees apart for this purpose. The shiny ring you see is the bottom of the Aerial Base No. 9 in place on top of this upper extension fitting.

The Insulator you posted a picture of looks like a main set aerial base for a wireless set that is not a 19-Set or 22-Set. Possibly a No. 9 or No. 11 Set...but do not quote me.

The photo you posted of the two aerial bases puzzles me. The forward mount assembly should be for the main set aerial for whatever wireless set was installed in the M10, but I have not seen anything quite like it before. Sorry.

Could this M10 have been set up as a Command Vehicle with two wireless sets on board?


David
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-02-24, 22:16
Johnny Canuck Johnny Canuck is offline
Geoff Truscott
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 158
Default

Hello Jack
First photo the arrow points to a common WS19 part, a No.9 aerial mount used with all G Rod applications clamps, extensions, mounts etc.. Attaches with 4 small screws through its metal base, centre is rubber and flexible, top is metal and threaded for the G Rod.

Second picture is same idea as the G Rod extension bottom rubber; but two or three times larger. Picture shows mount used with D Rods (7/8" various lengths., for WS9, 11, 12 ?? and command vehicles.

Third photograph is poor. Might just be something in front of the aerial base 9/10 with F Rods mounted, (static up to four 4' rods, mobile only 2 rods were used). I think you can just see the bottom angle of the No.8/10 base
Mount in window labelled WS19 is antenna for CDN WS58, post war adjustable adapter, aerial base No. 8 (spring clamp) and an antenna cable.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-24, 08:50
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Thanks again Geoff and David.

Was looking over my folder of collected images, and it seems the aerial atop the extension located hull side was pretty much standard. Though did come across one photo that did not make use of the extension.

For the aerial on the front glacis, those with the thicker bottom stem seem to be present during first month or two of the Normandy campaign and only on the M10. The Achilles photos have on the front the simpler set A utilizing Base No8. They also seem to be located in one of two or possibly three locations on the glacis.

The colour photo below shows two pot locations but period photos only ever show one aerial ever being used on the front.
Click image for larger version

Name:	622a958e8955557c29f61161_1280px-M10_Achilles_facing_forward.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	981.1 KB
ID:	136982

As for the M10/Achilles being a command vehicle equipped with two radio sets, it is not mentioned in the War Establishments. There was instead Universal Carriers used by troop commanders. These would be replaced with tanks were made available as Observation Posts in the form of Valentine or Crusader AA.
http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads...tillery.23770/

Anyhow lots to chew on, thanks guys. Now on to find better detail images and hope to find some dimensions.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-02-24, 10:15
Jordan Baker's Avatar
Jordan Baker Jordan Baker is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,012
Default

Here is some more pictures from the internet.
Attached Thumbnails
IMG_1207.jpeg   IMG_1206.jpeg   IMG_1205.jpeg   IMG_1204.jpeg   IMG_1203.jpeg  

__________________
Jordan Baker
RHLI Museum,
Otter LRC
C15A-Wire3, 1944
Willys MB, 1942
10cwt Canadian trailer
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-02-24, 15:34
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Thank you Jordan for those posted images. These larger files clearly show the Achilles front aerial base in these instances are the no10 type.
Click image for larger version

Name:	no10.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	60.5 KB
ID:	136988


The example of the kinked forward extension on the hull side is interesting, could that of been purposely done by the crew? The bend is too low to have been hit by the rotating of turret/gun barrel. Unless that was weakest point even when the antenna rod was attached which would mean it was smacked from behind?

The close up image with the barrel in contact with the B-Set aerial may explain the added fitting near the top of the mast, specifically put there for when this type of situation occurred? It is that same detail that I had posted as a cropped image with the red arrow pointing to it. Of note too both TD types have images of them traveling with the gun rotated so it is pointed to the rear.

Last edited by Jack Geratic; 12-02-24 at 15:53.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-02-24, 17:40
Bruce MacMillan Bruce MacMillan is offline
a Canuck/Brit in Blighty
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hell Fire Corner, Kent UK
Posts: 704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck View Post
Mount in window labelled WS19 is antenna for CDN WS58, post war adjustable adapter, aerial base No. 8 (spring clamp) and an antenna cable.

I have one of those as well.
Attached Thumbnails
ws19aerial.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 13-02-24, 02:05
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Geratic View Post

I think on the front is something like the example in the link below. It states it was telescopic with a height of 21 inches when closed, and could be raised to 90 inches.

Attachment 136977

The mast on the hull side looks much heavier - was this the standard B type aerial, but In this instance sitting atop an extension?
Those are standard WS19 aerial bases. The one on the tank side is the 'B' set Aerial Base No.9 on a Mounting No.3 (tall aluminium tube mount on a rubber base) fitted to a 'stalk' mounting of some kind on the tank. The mounting further forward is Aerial Base No.8 with Aerial Rods 'F' for the 'A' set.

Chris. (G8KGS)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13-02-24, 02:19
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
Antenna on radioman's right would be a G Rod (24") on an extension (PC 767010)(24" +-). Top would have Aerial base No.9 for the G rod and the bottom dome is rubber secured with a flat ring bolted to the extension supplied. The bottom rubber dome allowed the barrel to traverse pushing the whole thing over. The mount also allowed the G rod to clear the clutter on the upper deck.
The F Rods were mounted on a bracket behind the headlight guard on front glacis radioman's side. No.8/10 base plus required F Rods.
WS19/22 would have been mounted in hull right front as the M10 was open turret TD.

Geoff
Agreed. The 'B' set base is on an Aerial Base No.9 Mounting No.3 to get the 'G' rod above the turret roof line. I think the 'A' set aerial still has the remains of some waterproofing from the beach landing on it - probably a plastic tube and a lot of asbestos mastic to seal the ends (insulator at the bottom, aerial rod at the top) and keep the water out while wading. There's a discarded exhaust trunk in one photograph to hint at wading ashore....

Best regards,
Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 13-02-24, 02:32
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce MacMillan View Post
I have one of those as well.
It's a "Horrible Bodge"[TM] by the dealer!

The mounting is the steel/rubber turret roof version (No.1?) that is secured by Aerial Feeder No.4 or No.5 and the fine-threaded nut and tab washer.

The Aerial Base is the standard No.8.

The next piece is "Adapter, Aerial, No.1" ZA.27220 which _is_ wartime issue and killed off the phantom "Aerial Base No.19" that someone here discovered a teleprinter message from London admitting that only a single prototype had been made! (It carried on well into the modern era but has possibly been killed off by BOWMAN - they were certainly issued with Larkspur installation kits and the only difference is the earlier ones marked ZA.27220 and the later ones with larger numbers showing the last 7 digits of the NATO Stock Number.

The 'F' rod diameters didn't change, so it would fit anything up to Aerial Base No.31 Mk.7 and be useful for laying the aerial flat when required.

Best regards,
Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 13-02-24, 07:40
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Hi Chris, much thanks for your replies.

Indeed yes that image with wading trunks lying in the foreground was taken on June 6th 1944. The M10s are identified as belonging to 3rd Canadian Anti-Tank Regiment.

Talk about going full circle about the antenna setup on the front glacis. That would explain why I could not find a proper modern photo with a thicker base stem, and the only closest resemblance turns out to be a "Horrible Bodge".
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 13-02-24, 17:36
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Is this where the G rod length measurement would lie as represented with the green line? The forum has its diameter quoted as 1/4 inch so the thickness of that green line is also scaled to match the length. Visually it seems the rod in the photo would be near double diameter and it does appear much heavier than the aerial located on the hull front.

Click image for larger version

Name:	G rod dimensions.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	990.8 KB
ID:	136990
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 13-02-24, 22:09
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Geratic View Post
Is this where the G rod length measurement would lie as represented with the green line? The forum has its diameter quoted as 1/4 inch so the thickness of that green line is also scaled to match the length. Visually it seems the rod in the photo would be near double diameter and it does appear much heavier than the aerial located on the hull front.

Attachment 136990
Nope! The green line (10 inches visible) is part of the Achilles, and would be installed during construction ready for a wireless fit (likewise the shorter pillar on the front glacis plate for the 'A' set aerial). It will terminate in a circular flange with either four, five, or six holes depending on which "Aerial Base No.? Mounting No.?" is intended to go on top of it. In this case it's got Aerial Base No.9 Mounting No.3 fitted, which has a hollow rubber cylinder and loose clamping ring at the bottom, the central stalk is fitted to the top, and the top section is larger to match the Aerial Base No.9 (which fits over it and is secured by four screws) and Aerial Rod 'G' screws into the top of that.

The question is: can I put my hand on the one I've got at this time of night?

(Answer: No. Darn it all to Heck (in lieu of anything stronger - I must have moved it during the last sortout).

Back to the photograph... the tip of the red arrow is pointing at a white stripe; this is the nickel-plated inverted cup that is the start of Aerial Base No.9, and has a Pye connector in the centre with a pigtail lead that goes up to the (again nickel plated) top cap on the ribbed rubber insulator - the aerial rod screws into the centre of the top cap (2BA thread (I think)). The coaxial feeder (Leads, Aerial, No.2 ZA.3142 or No.3 ZA3143 from memory) is stuffed up from inside the hull, attached to the aerial base and the horseshoe shaped wire clip fastened, after which the clip is secured with some twisted copper wire and the base attached to the mounting with four screws. The aerial leads for the 'B' set are a tuned length and must not be shortened.

That mounting looks like the one I have (somewhere), and most of it is thin-wall duralumin tubing painted dark green (wrinkle finish) which makes me think it's USA manufactured.

The Australian version used a big steel coil spring instead of the rubber mounting at the base of the mount.

Hope this is some help, I'll continue looking for the mounting.

Chris. (G8KGS)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 13-02-24, 22:29
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dunlop View Post
Hello Jack.

The Insulator you posted a picture of looks like a main set aerial base for a wireless set that is not a 19-Set or 22-Set. Possibly a No. 9 or No. 11 Set...but do not quote me.

David
Not quite: the big insulator was originally Aerial Base No.3 for wireless trucks using the No.2 or No.3 set and Aerial Rods 'D' - as part of the 34-ft mast. Later on they were used on wireless trucks with serious high power transmitters (WS 12, 12HP, 33, ET4336, etc.) and the rubber insulator was not up to the job, so it was bypassed electrically with the four copper braid straps, and sat on a large mushroom-shaped ceramic insulator (Insulator, W/T, 'H') so that it could be fed from underneath - the No.3 required a wire to the terminal on top of the insulator. The combination was redesignated Aerial Lead-in No.16.

Use with the whole 34-ft mast caused the rubber dome to collapse under the weight, so a "skeleton cone" support was made that was inverted over the rubber insulator and locked onto studs on the top plate, the rods were inserted and a screw clamped onto the bottom rod to take the load off the rubber. Static use only, of course - it was a rigid assembly.

The final version was Aerial Base No.20 which did away with all the Base No.3 bits and simply had a rigid socket bolted through Insulator W/T 'H'.

Best regards,
Chris (G8KGS)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 14-02-24, 01:31
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

My confusion on the photo study, so the G Rod is not even present in the image? I think too a bad choice in colour on my part as I have the bottom measurement as 10 inches labelled in blue. . .

Chris, hope you can find the physical example and share it here.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 14-02-24, 01:55
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Geratic View Post
My confusion on the photo study, so the G Rod is not even present in the image? I think too a bad choice in colour on my part as I have the bottom measurement as 10 inches labelled in blue. . .

Chris, hope you can find the physical example and share it here.
I've been thinking for some time that an "Aerial Base Disambiguation Guide" would be useful, with photographs and measurements, but was always too busy. (I have been collecting representative samples of stuff for a few (too many) years...)

Now I'm retired that maybe less of a problem.

I'll see what I can do.

Best regards,
Chris. (G8KGS)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 14-02-24, 19:01
Maurice Donckers Maurice Donckers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beek Holland
Posts: 403
Default

I have seen several with the 2 pots on the front like the color picture from the one in la Roche , could this have something to do with the afv 38 set ?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15-02-24, 14:31
Tim Bell's Avatar
Tim Bell Tim Bell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice Donckers View Post
I have seen several with the 2 pots on the front like the color picture from the one in la Roche , could this have something to do with the afv 38 set ?
WS38 AFV did not get into service much before Feb 45.

Before that vehicles were fitted with the WS38 Mk2* manpack radio.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 15-02-24, 15:49
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

I downloaded a digital copy of this book and THE only mention of radio equipment is the A and B set for the No.19 wireless. Suppose there is a chance the info is wrong or incomplete.

Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2024-02-15 at 09-47-54 Tank Destroyer Achilles and M10 British Army Anti-Tank Units W.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	48.4 KB
ID:	136999
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15-02-24, 16:51
Ed Storey Ed Storey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,434
Default Book Sources

The sources quoted will give you a pretty good idea how accurate the book may be.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15-02-24, 20:32
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Geratic View Post
I downloaded a digital copy of this book and THE only mention of radio equipment is the A and B set for the No.19 wireless. Suppose there is a chance the info is wrong or incomplete.

Attachment 136999
The M10 is a small self-propelled gun, basically a 17-pdr with more mobility and protection. It would not require supporting infantry (which was the main role of the 'C' set (WS38, then WS38AFV, WS88AFV and WS31AFV later on), as I think its own role was support for other armour).

I'll have a look in the "Wireless Diagrams" section of the Royal Signals Pocket Book (Part 2, Wireless Diagrams, 1945) at some point - this shows typical Nets, set allocations, etc. for units and formations - and see what's listed for the RAC at the close of WW2.

Bear in mind that armoured vehicles were common to various armies and those armies had very different ideas about the radio fit required - so the tank hulls and turrets would be manufactured with a "default set" of aerial mounting positions and what would be fitted depended on the country, role, and individual unit - with later modifications for "specials" such as command tanks, etc. as tactics evolved.

(Fitting the WS19 'A' set aerial base to a Sherman required different parts to a Pershing (T26E1) because the later U.S. aerial base used a hole in the armour about three times the diameter of the UK tank(s) - so there was a spacer kit and big washers involved!)

Best regards,
Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15-02-24, 23:10
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Concerning the book, it does include footnotes at the end of each chapter for specific info, but none provided for the subject of the wireless.

The M10 and Achilles were based on the Sherman M4A2 hull, but were obtained to equip AT units which were part of the Royal Canadian Artillery. Regiments of course were assigned to both infantry and armour but they remained RCA. This may be a factor on how the assigned wireless may have been altered or converted once in the field.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 16-02-24, 01:01
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Geratic View Post
Concerning the book, it does include footnotes at the end of each chapter for specific info, but none provided for the subject of the wireless.

The M10 and Achilles were based on the Sherman M4A2 hull, but were obtained to equip AT units which were part of the Royal Canadian Artillery. Regiments of course were assigned to both infantry and armour but they remained RCA. This may be a factor on how the assigned wireless may have been altered or converted once in the field.
OK, that explains why they are using the hull-mounted aerials (American type), whereas the British and Canadian tanks mostly mounted wireless kit in the turret where there was more room. It also means there is no way in hell that the turret can be rotated 360 degrees without hitting the aerials (which in most cases will not survive the experience).

...


...

Gah! (Gives up on Pinterest, which has everything scrambled together and nothing resembling a radio fit in any detail.(Or in Bovington's case, _at_all!))

More when/if I find the aerial mount.

Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 16-02-24, 06:12
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

The American use of the M10 required just the one antenna, and the hull side location was specifically made just for this. Their aerial base looks better designed to bend with the turret rotation.

Click image for larger version

Name:	us m10 small.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	750.8 KB
ID:	137001

Click image for larger version

Name:	us m10 cropped.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	849.8 KB
ID:	137000
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 16-02-24, 11:23
Jakko Westerbeke Jakko Westerbeke is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Geratic View Post
The M10 and Achilles were based on the Sherman M4A2 hull, but were obtained to equip AT units
It’s probably a good idea to mention here that the British/Commonwealth views of vehicles like the M10 is that they were not tank destroyers but self-propelled anti-tank guns. Which is to say: American doctrine was that these vehicles would essentially rush forward to stop an enemy breakthrough, or go tank-hunting, while the British view was, basically, that they were anti-tank guns that happened to not need a vehicle to tow them, making them more mobile and easier to reposition. This probably affected the radio to be fitted as standard to them, though the unit they were to work with would as well, I suppose.

I recently read Chris Camfield’s new book on the Archer, which talks about the radios fitted on page 112. It seems Archer had a No. 18 set as standard, which was also issued to towed 17-pounder units from Normandy on. However, it had all kinds of issues, mainly being underpowered and going off frequency if the vehicle moved, and so units preferred to replace them with No. 19 sets if they could get them. Not sure what was in the M10 in British/Commonwealth service,* but it could well be much the same?


* All this talking about M10 vs. Achilles also makes me want to note that “Achilles” was a nickname for all types of M10 in British service, but it was rarely, if ever, used in. The normal name in service was “M10” for any vehicle of the type, and “3-inch M10” or “17-pounder M10” (or variations on those) if a specific variant was meant. Somehow, after the war, “Achilles” stuck for the 17-pounder version only — and having read the Archer book and its explanation about the name, in Appendix 3 on page 141, I’m now inclined to think “Achilles” might just have been actively rejected by the War Office just like “Archer” was. (In short: “Archer” was a Ministry of Supply designation, which the British Army did not want to use.)

Last edited by Jakko Westerbeke; 16-02-24 at 11:32.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 16-02-24, 16:55
Jack Geratic Jack Geratic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 179
Default

Hello Jakko, thank you for stopping by and bring up those points.

I have read the reason the Army, or more specifically the Royal Artillery et al, did not adopt that name, since being gunners, they were primarily concerned with the gun type.

Anyhow another interesting variation of the B Set aerial where the bottom extension is not in use

Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2024-02-16 at 01-00-09 Tank Chats #88 Valentine Archer The Tank Museum.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	709.4 KB
ID:	137002
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 00:42.


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