Author Topic: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader) - Project CLOSED!  (Read 48828 times)

Pinky

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,726
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2015, 10:46:20 am »
Ripley - from what I could find, the British used American tons (kind of crazy that there'd be 2 different kinds of ton!).  What I was wondering is if there were different ways of designating the weight - either the vehicle's actual weight, or a weight class (based on the vehicle's weight, rounded up) that corresponded with a bridge classification.  That would explain apparent discrepancies in the numbers on bridge plates. 
« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 10:48:23 am by Pinky »

ripley

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,849
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2015, 12:30:11 pm »
IRC from my Army days , vehicle weight was the total of a combat  load of ammo , fuel , other supplies , crew kit etc plus the crew . And it seems the bridge class number varied on most AFVs , to a higher number .  Maybe it was  because  of   all the  track shoes used as extra armour added in Normandy . Some pictures show almost as much track  ( Churchill & Panther ) welded to the hull and turret of Canadian Shermans than the tank  had on its road wheels . In fact most units were told not to weld track on the turret as the turret motor couldn't handle the extra weight and burned out !( And the different ton thing is strange , but goes back years ( maybe like 1776 ) , the UK gallon is also larger than the US , I remember that from school , because ours was the same as the UKs here in Canada. )   And looking through my Concord Brit Sherman book , of about 200 pictures , I can only find a hand full of Bridge discs . Either they are covered by dirt , the paint has washed / chipped off , or  they didn't paint it on to start with . So I guess it really  doesn't matter .  lol  The book does say Brit Shermans were rated at 30 tons (  UK tons ) in North Africa , so maybe when the US joined the war and units were in combined operations it was best to have one weight class ( 34 US tons ) ?  Also trucks and gun  tractors had a double bridge disc - weight of gun  tractor / truck by itself  , weight with field gun and ammo / cargo .

Pinky

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,726
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2015, 12:51:37 pm »
From what I can tell, by 1944 the British graded bridges according to a series of numbers, representing the highest weight they could carry: 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, and 70.  A vehicle's bridge plate would show the vehicle's bridge class by reference the closest number above its weight.  On this basis, the Crusader AA being "18" and the basic Crusader being "20" seems to make sense.  Where it gets confusing is where you see other numbers that are probably the vehicle's actual weight (like "19", assuming this is based on an actual vehicle).  When I was checking the M5A1/M8's bridge plate, I found bridge plates which didn't fit into this series, and I think that's because the US Army's showed the actual weight.  Or there's some other reason - it's an obscure topic.  I agree that these symbols didn't appear very often on tanks (British or American).  I guess you just assumed that a tank needed a pretty strong bridge!

Rubicon Models

  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,862
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #48 on: August 02, 2015, 01:05:05 pm »
Bridge Plates... interesting topic!  From our research, we come across several forum post over the internet, and here is a summary...

In 1909 it seemed to be the responsibility of a general staff officer at the approach to a bridge to give instructions to commanders of units about the suitability of the crossing. By 1911 the responsibility of giving the bridge a load classification passed to the engineers in the unit constructing the bridge. They were required to indicate at each end of the bridge the greatest permissible load. The examples below take little account of motor transport:

“Bridge to carry infantry in fours”
“Bridge to carry infantry in file”
“Bridge to carry guns not heavier than 18-pr”
“Not for animals”
“Bridge for all arms. No road engines”


By 1924 a simpler classification was in use:

“Foot-bridges”- Infantry in single file.
“Pack-bridges” - Infantry in single file, cavalry in single file, pack animal transport.
“Medium bridges” - Infantry in fours, cavalry in half-sections, horsed transport, cars, armoured cars, light & med
artillery, 3-ton lorries & all ordinary MT up to 5½-ton axle load.
“Heavy bridges” – Heavy artillery, tractors & MT up to 16-ton axle load, tanks up to 18 tons.
“Super-heavy bridges” – Axle loads & tanks in excess of above loads.


By 1935 the classification in use was refined further:

“Assault”- Infantry in single file.
“Pack” - Infantry in single file, cavalry in single file, pack animal transport.
“Light” - Infantry in fours, cavalry in half-sections, vehicles & weapons with forward units,
horsed transport, horse & field artillery, cars, ambulances, lorries & AFVs max 4½-ton weight.
“Medium”-All loads normally with a division, 4-whld MT up to axle load of 5.7 tons, 6-whld vehicles max
axle load 3.6 tons or a rear bogie of 7.2 tons.
“Heavy” - All loads normally with an army in the field. All 4-whld MT, 6-whld MT up to axle load of 8.25 tons or
bogie load of 16.5 tons, tracked vehicles with sprung tracks up to 19.25 tons, provided track bearing length is not less than 13 feet.
“Super-heavy”- Vehicles whose weights exceed “Heavy”

By 1939 all bridges where classed according to the maximum weight of a vehicle in tons giving the following Classes 5, 9, 12, 18 or 24. It should be noted that bridges classes apply not just to fixed bridges but to pontoons bridges as well.

Notes on M.T. Administration W.O. Code No.11060 issued in November 1954 suspended Bridge Classification Signs in the U.K. In overseas theatres this sign could still be used at the discretion of the C-in-C and G.O.C-in-C. where considered necessary. In fact such classification was only ordered in Bridge Classification Signs (Overseas Only) W.O.Code No.8229. Although vehicles at that time were classed in multiples of 1 ton, it was not just the laden weight. They were calculated from data which included the load capacity, tyre sizes etc. Bridges classes were extended as follows:

5, 9, 12, 18, 24, 48, 50, 60, 70.


Bridge Load Classification (STANAG 2021) Introduced 1960-63

The bridge load classification was said to originally have represented by the rounded up weight of the vehicle in tons. "The new system relates to the characteristics of the vehicle which includes overall weight, number of axles, distance between axles, axle load (unladen & laden), tyre size, ground clearance etc and bears no direct relationship to the former system."

It must be remembered that is a STANAG, which is a NATO Standard applicable to many countries. The UK had already taken some account of factors other than weight. What changed in the U.K. was that the mechanism for calculating a figure was more comprehensive and now standardised with other NATO countries.

The classification of bridges was also changed to take account of the effects that particular vehicles would have on the bridge. However the application of the system is the same as before, in that only a vehicle load class less or equal to the bridge load class number may cross the bridge. The load class number is based on vehicles travelling at normal convoy speeds at a spacing of 100 feet. The classification also relates to ferries, and takes into account an assessment of the state of the approaches to the crossing to produce an overall classification.

There was no point in UK based vehicles having a Bridge Class displayed, as the Joint Service Road Transport Regulations JSP 341 states that: The UK will not prepare classification signs for civilian bridges and ferries in UK territory in peacetime.




Pinky

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,726
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2015, 01:23:08 pm »
Well, we've now descended into ridiculous levels of obscurity :) 

The problem is (apart from some conflicting information) is that none of this clarifies what actually appeared on tanks in service.  I guess you could just include 18, 19, 20 and 21, and cover every option.

Rubicon Models

  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,862
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2015, 03:03:25 pm »
Not much room to include all bridge plates.  Will probably going to create some additional decal sheets to cover general markings AFTER getting over the aftereffects of the waterslide decal sickness!

Here is the updated and hopefully the final version of the Crusader decal:


;)

Pinky

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,726
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2015, 04:14:11 pm »
...Will probably going to create some additional decal sheets to cover general markings AFTER getting over the aftereffects of the waterslide decal sickness!

Yeah, it's easy for us to debate the contents, but you're the ones who have to change the actual decals!

I still think the bridge plate numbers are incorrect (if only because of the photo of "Skyraker" above) but there's not a lot to go on.  Great to see the Aussie markings :)
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 02:57:50 pm by Pinky »

bull-nut

  • Cadet
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2015, 06:26:41 pm »
Do you really need two of each bridge plate, I thought they were only worn 1 per vehicle. If I'm right, you could replace one of each with an (18) and (20) and not need any extra space on the sheet.

Rubicon Models

  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,862
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #53 on: August 03, 2015, 08:48:31 pm »
bull-nut, already done that.  Didn't update it on the post!

;)

Rubicon Models

  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,862
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #54 on: August 07, 2015, 12:00:04 am »
Even when we are pressing for an on-time early September release, we are still pushing hard to make this Crusader a perfect product!  Did some more work on the hull details - more bolts and more accurate rendering of the real vehicle!!!




Enjoy!!

Pinky

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,726
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #55 on: August 07, 2015, 12:09:31 am »
I'm getting the impression that the Crusader might be one of Rubicon's personal favourite tanks ;)

That looks really good.  The level of moulded detail on this kit is really impressive.  For anyone who's not familiar with the complex pattern of bolts and other details on the Crusader, here are some photos of a real one.  Looks as though Rubicon have nailed it!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 12:11:12 am by Pinky »

Rubicon Models

  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,862
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #56 on: August 07, 2015, 12:15:17 am »
I'm getting the impression that the Crusader might be one of Rubicon's personal favourite tanks ;)

That looks really good.  The level of moulded detail on this kit is really impressive.  For anyone who's not familiar with the complex pattern of bolts and other details on the Crusader, here are some photos of a real one.  Looks as though Rubicon have nailed it!
The Crusader might not be our most favourite tank!  But it is THE one that took us the longest time to complete as a project (not counting the SdKfz 251 because of the various number of expansions)!

Would like to take a break away from BOLTS & NUTS for a little while...


Rubicon Models

  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,862
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #57 on: August 07, 2015, 11:53:55 am »
Here is some of our painted test shot #2 images of the A15 Crusader tank:


















Enjoy!


Pinky

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,726
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #58 on: August 07, 2015, 10:38:06 pm »
Everything looks great - my only query is whether the 2-pdr and 6-pdr barrels are too long.  The 6-pdr in particular doesn't seem to have protruded over the nose that far on the real tank.  But I appreciate that it might be a result of the photo distorting the dimensions.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2015, 12:24:39 am by Pinky »

bull-nut

  • Cadet
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI (A15 Crusader)
« Reply #59 on: August 08, 2015, 04:00:52 am »
If my info is correct ( and I will have to check) both the mk111 and mkV 6pdr guns were fitted to crusader. The mkV had a longer barrel IIRC.