_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Canadian Sherman strange configuration
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 - 12:27 PM UTC
Came across this picture today, stated to be Canadian Brigadier General T. Rutherford in front of his Sherman. I find the tactical mark on the turret a little strange, almost like they tried to paint over something. And the big one, it looks like there is a Vicker MG mounted with some bracket to the barrel.



I am under the assumption that this was during his time as Commander of the 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 - 12:49 PM UTC
That is a wonderful picture. I can't answer the question, however if it is a command tank with a dummy gun, he must have decided to add a little fire power to his tank.

A couple things stand out. The wood handles on the tools is painted, and peeling, and the pry bar looks bent. The worn down rubber on a few road wheels indicates a lot of service use, so I would venture a guess that is his command tank.

With luck one of our Canadian modelers can clue us in.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 - 01:15 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Came across this picture today, stated to be Canadian Brigadier General T. Rutherford in front of his Sherman. I find the tactical mark on the turret a little strange, almost like they tried to paint over something. And the big one, it looks like there is a Vicker MG mounted with some bracket to the barrel.



I am under the assumption that this was during his time as Commander of the 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade.


American weapons typically had some sort of subcaliber training gun that could be inserted into or attached to the tube. This allowed training with much cheaper ammunition (say, WW I-era 37mm instead of 75mm or cal. .50 BMG instead of 37mm) or on much shorter ranges than using main gun ammunition. This is likely a device to hold something for gunnery training.

It looks more like a rifle barrel and action than a HMG to me.

KL

SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2019 - 12:22 AM UTC
Kurt

Thanks, that is a possibility, the picture could have been taken will training in England, prior to being shipped to Sicily/Italy.

I will have to look more into that. As I beleive that the 1st CAB, was still using Churchills/Valentines for training, their first experience with the Shermans was the landing at Sicily.

Kevin
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2019 - 01:19 AM UTC

Quoted Text

American weapons typically had some sort of subcaliber training gun that could be inserted into or attached to the tube. This allowed training with much cheaper ammunition (say, WW I-era 37mm instead of 75mm or cal. .50 BMG instead of 37mm) or on much shorter ranges than using main gun ammunition.






Here's a British version to be used with a Bren gun :



H.P.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2019 - 02:07 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Kurt

Thanks, that is a possibility, the picture could have been taken will training in England, prior to being shipped to Sicily/Italy.

I will have to look more into that. As I beleive that the 1st CAB, was still using Churchills/Valentines for training, their first experience with the Shermans was the landing at Sicily.

Kevin

You don't go from platforms as different as a Valentine to a Sherman without transition training or at least familiarization sessions. Plus when not in the line there could be concurrent training to keep crews fresh. Especially with a real sharp and keen officer.
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2019 - 02:56 AM UTC
While doing a little more research, the initial information I have found may be incorrect. It seems that Brig-Gen Rutherford was the Commanding Officer of the 11th Canadian Infantry Brigade, 5th Canadian Armoured Division. So my thought now is that the tank would be part of the 5th CAD, probably during training in England.

This would make the information about the mounting of a smaller caliber weapon for training. And would also point to the strange tactical marking on the turret.
easyco69
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 07, 2019 - 01:06 PM UTC
Don't they use them for ranging?
I seen a program of the Leopard II Canadians using the coaxial MG for ranging the big gun. Of course that wouldn't make sense with the small caliber .45 ACP Thompson.
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 07, 2019 - 10:22 PM UTC
The turret marking looks like an incomplete job - they painted a "standard" rectangle and first letter, to be followed by the vehicle's own ID, but haven't got to that part yet. Just an educated guess...
jon_a_its
Visit this Community
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 29, 2004
KitMaker: 1,336 posts
Armorama: 1,137 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 07, 2019 - 10:24 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Don't they use them for ranging?
I seen a program of the Leopard II Canadians using the coaxial MG for ranging the big gun. Of course that wouldn't make sense with the small caliber .45 ACP Thompson.


The 'Bolt-ons' are most likely for training, for reasons as given above, as in combat the co-ax mg & main gun would be used.

The Leo example is probably correct for a Co-Axial MG.

The only one I can quote for certain is for the UK Chieftan, where, on the Mark 1 and Mark 2's, the coaxial Browning .50-inch (12.7 mm) ranging machine gun, which was matched balistically to the main gun, so was in theory used for ranging shots.
If I remember right, after the introduction of the laser rangefinder on later marks, the .50 cal was replaced with a Coaxial L8A1 7.62 mm machine gun
RLlockie
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Friday, March 08, 2019 - 06:54 AM UTC
Actually the Chieftain’s .50 RG (not RMG please) was removed when the TLS was fitted but the co-ax was unchanged as one was already fitted.
 _GOTOTOP