PDA

View Full Version : Comet Footage



hptmurphy
15th August 2012, 22:45
http://www.euscreen.eu/play.jsp?id=EUS_9FB12903985B4A9CB70370D99A7D5211

GoneToTheCanner
16th August 2012, 23:05
Very nice but sad to think that in the year of the Congo, the best thing we had was obsolete Comets and the best thing we could ship to Africa was pathetic Fords and were subsequently intimidated by 37mm equipped Greyhounds.

regards
GttC

B Inman
16th August 2012, 23:48
Very nice but sad to think that in the year of the Congo, the best thing we had was obsolete Comets and the best thing we could ship to Africa was pathetic Fords and were subsequently intimidated by 37mm equipped Greyhounds.

regards
GttC

The Landsverks would seem to have been the better option. I wonder why they were not sent.

almaza
17th August 2012, 11:44
The Landsverks would seem to have been the better option. I wonder why they were not sent.

There was a lack of trained crews for the Landsverks.

backsturd
17th August 2012, 11:57
There was a diocumenntary on RTE during the 80's about the FCA I suppose that hasn't been posted on the net or has it?

hptmurphy
17th August 2012, 21:22
The Landsverks would seem to have been the better option. I wonder why they were not sent


Simple as spares !


Most stuff for the Fords engine wise was available off the shelf..not the case with landsverks.

Gunner
18th August 2012, 11:36
The landsverks were reengined with straight Eight Ford engine , I think the Origional was a Bussing

pg

hptmurphy
18th August 2012, 16:13
The landsverks were reengined with straight Eight Ford engine , I think the Origional was a Bussing
Originally a Bussing - Nag 7900cc V8 replaced by Ford V 8 5195cc petrol engine in 1956/57.

Knocks the shit out of my theory!

It might have been simply down to numbers , we had 8 Landsverk 180s in service and between Mk 5 and Mk 6 Fords...32 in service......throw in 4 leylands, numbers and logistics alone would suggest that the only option was the Fords.

Now back to the Comets. We overlook the fact that tanks area carried everywhere until it comes to battle, Armoured cars and the like have 'scouting' functions along with patrolling functions in the lead up to battles as opposed to tanks which are used as force multipliers during battles.

You won't deploy tanks until you know what action is required as they are slow , heavy, fuel thirsty, very fatiguing on crews and are very vulnerable without infantry support in situations where enemy infantry have been deployed.

Now look at the nature of pitched actions in the Congo and the logistics of employing what were rather large vehicles , Comets, and see how wasteful it would have been.

almaza
18th August 2012, 17:28
Originally a Bussing - Nag 7900cc V8 replaced by Ford V 8 5195cc petrol engine in 1956/57.

Knocks the shit out of my theory!

It might have been simply down to numbers , we had 8 Landsverk 180s in service and between Mk 5 and Mk 6 Fords...32 in service......throw in 4 leylands, numbers and logistics alone would suggest that the only option was the Fords.

Now back to the Comets. We overlook the fact that tanks area carried everywhere until it comes to battle, Armoured cars and the like have 'scouting' functions along with patrolling functions in the lead up to battles as opposed to tanks which are used as force multipliers during battles.

You won't deploy tanks until you know what action is required as they are slow , heavy, fuel thirsty, very fatiguing on crews and are very vulnerable without infantry support in situations where enemy infantry have been deployed.

Now look at the nature of pitched actions in the Congo and the logistics of employing what were rather large vehicles , Comets, and see how wasteful it would have been.

Like I said already there was a lack of trained crews for the Landsverks as they were only used by 1 Armoured Squadron. The same applies to the Leylands and Dodges. The Ford Mk V cars were all sold in the 1950s. The Ford Mk VI cars were used by all the Motor Squadrons so had plenty of trained crew.

GoneToTheCanner
18th August 2012, 20:18
I think the presence of a few tanks, even obsolete ones, in the Congo might have adjusted the odds in favour of the UN. Don't forget the positive effect the presence of equally difficult to move, maintain and crew combat aircraft had on the UN forces.
regards
GttC

hptmurphy
19th August 2012, 19:15
I think the presence of a few tanks, even obsolete one

Given they deployed the Fords obsolesence was hardly high on the list of reasons.The problem being numbers and how to get them around the place.....The army at the time had one vehicle capable of transporting the tanks. a single Diamond T, All well and good in Ireland where you could drive them out to the Glen and back from the Curragh for a days training, but operational deployment would have required dedicated workshops and transport and the type of actions fought didn't allow for pre deployment of tanks and their supports,

Spares were a problem for the Comets as the army had only purchased them in small packets and all of a sudden the Brits off loaded all of the surplus and Ireland missed out. From Karl Martins book on Irish Vehicles by 1960 had only enough stocks of spares for eight Comets for two years, and they certainly weren't going to run them into the ground on behalf of the UN.

Also worth noting was the lack of suitable ammunition as the HE round fuse was found to be faulty and had to be withdrawn.This left the tanks very limited in capabilities. One tank shoot was held annually through the 1960s and by 1970 only 55 rounds of ammunition remained in stock, last shoot was held in 1973 when the Comets were withdrawn from service and the Tank Squadron was wound up.

back to the Ford Mk6s for a mo....11 of a possible 17 were deployed to the Congo, never to return they had been deployed in January and June of 1961 with 34th and 35th Bns and on 12th May 1964 six survivors were handed over to the Congolese Army at Kolwezi Airport, all six were running.

Again the Landsverks were considered for deployment but Shortage of Spares,Shortage of crews...and the crew numbers required, Five as opposed to three were the main reasons they weren't ( Karl Martin Irish Army Vehicles Page 37 quoting a Commandant Magennis).

So despite all the conjecture, the facts speak for themselves and maybe the army people got it right for once.

All the Ford Mk Vs were sold on 28.05.1954.

Herald
20th August 2012, 10:58
Weren't the Fords relatively dangerous vehicles though? being really sofskin rather than armoured? didnt they have mild steel plate instead of armour? I would have thought this made them susceptible to AK/7.62 fire ?

Goldie fish
20th August 2012, 11:49
Weren't the Fords relatively dangerous vehicles though? being really sofskin rather than armoured? didnt they have mild steel plate instead of armour? I would have thought this made them susceptible to AK/7.62 fire ?

Most modern armoured vehicles use mild steel plate. Its just a name, unless you are using Cast iron. All steel suffers from the effect of bullet fire. Crews of the first tanks suffered greatly from shrapnel generated by machine gun fire hitting the outside of the hull.

hptmurphy
20th August 2012, 15:26
Weren't the Fords relatively dangerous vehicles though? being really sofskin rather than armoured? didnt they have mild steel plate instead of armour? I would have thought this made them susceptible to AK/7.62 fire


Care to test out the ballistic protection of a Panhard?

GoneToTheCanner
20th August 2012, 17:04
Goldie, I'm surprised at you. Boiler plate is certainly not armour plate and neither is mild steel, neither of which is bullet-proof, unless they are very thick. Armour plate is either face-hardened (hardened on the outer face only)or homogenous (hardened throughout), by virtue of being exposed to carbon under extreme heat. Armour plate is harder to drill, cut or weld than untreated steel. Cast-iron is only effective as armour if it is very thick and even then, can shatter if struck by a solid shot. A brother of a colleague is on the team that minds the Sliabh na mBan and even it's plate is still reported as being hard work to drill through, after all these years.

regards
GttC

Herald
20th August 2012, 17:08
Most modern armoured vehicles use mild steel plate. Its just a name, unless you are using Cast iron. All steel suffers from the effect of bullet fire. Crews of the first tanks suffered greatly from shrapnel generated by machine gun fire hitting the outside of the hull.
Goldie, I appreciate what you are saying, but my understanding is that 180BHN(Brinell Hardnes Number) mild steel is about 80% of RHA (Rolled homogeneous armour), while 100-120 BHN mild steel is about 2/3 resistance of RHA.As the Thompson factory in Carlow was an engineering works mostly used for producing farm equipment and steel bodies for the 1940's version of rockmoving trucks and other general industrial uses, I'm under the impression that they wouldnt have had the ability to produce anything like RHA, and unless the thickness was doubled,(unlikely due to weight) then the Fords would have been very susceptible to small arms fire.


Care to test out the ballistic protection of a Panhard?

I've seen some of the M3's which were used for target practice, but was under the impression they were hit by HMG or small cannon rounds, and that the armour although penetrable from the sides, was heavier in front, whereas the Fords were same gauge allround? Also I would have thought the Landsverks were carrying heavier armour.

Goldie fish
20th August 2012, 17:42
Most of the holes in M3s were made by 90mm and 7.62 Coax from AML..

DeV
20th August 2012, 21:39
Look at the slope of the frontal armour on a Scorpion (while it is aluminium) it is designed to stop 14.5mm (not sure if it ball or AP).

Herald
20th August 2012, 21:51
Look at the slope of the frontal armour on a Scorpion (while it is aluminium) it is designed to stop 14.5mm (not sure if it ball or AP).

Is the purpose of slope armour not to deflect moreso than stop?

sofa
20th August 2012, 22:11
Is the purpose of slope armour not to deflect moreso than stop?

Makes the armour thicker then if it was upright

sofa
20th August 2012, 22:31
Most modern armoured vehicles use mild steel plate. Its just a name, unless you are using Cast iron. All steel suffers from the effect of bullet fire. Crews of the first tanks suffered greatly from shrapnel generated by machine gun fire hitting the outside of the hull.

Not enough carbon in Mild steel to harden it, but you can induce carbon into the surface for Case hardening the steel to give a hardness and toughness

quality. Cast Iron is the other end of the scale, to much carbon to harden, but good low friction qualities. Mild steel is a cheap general purpose material.

For the same thickness, Alloy tool steels would give better protection, and hardness after heat treatment.

sofa
20th August 2012, 22:33
Is the purpose of slope armour not to deflect moreso than stop?

Makes the armour thicker then if it was upright

hptmurphy
20th August 2012, 22:37
I'm under the impression that they wouldnt have had the ability to produce anything like RHA,

Correct.Thompsons were fabricators, coach builders originally , who obtained the raw materials from the Irish Sugar Company in Carlow.

Mild steel plate in the Mk Vs and VIs

Mk IV Case hardened steel....

Back to the M3s, the photos I took in Coolmoney in 2005 of the remaining M3 VTTs ranged from 7.62mm up to and including 90mm with anything you can think of thrown in.

Comparing the Landsverks and Fords is not equitable where as the Lyland armoured car was of a more similiar layout but with their armour plate...which it was coming from the Peerless cars mounted on a Leyland Terrier chassis.It had been originally envisage the Peerless Trrets and bodies could be transferred directly but proved impossible. The turrets were mounted on the MK IV ford cars...enter the Dodge Cars which were essentially the same body as the MKV mounted on a Dodge Chassis agaiin built from steel plate obtained by Thompsons from the Irish Sugar Company in Carlow.


and that the armour although penetrable from the sides, was heavier in front,

Front Glascis on M3s and AMLs is the only actual armour plate on the cars an is sloped to increase protection.

All said and done they are bullet magnets as opposed to bullet proof!

Herald
20th August 2012, 23:32
Correct.Thompsons were fabricators, coach builders originally , who obtained the raw materials from the Irish Sugar Company in Carlow.

Mild steel plate in the Mk Vs and VIs

Mk IV Case hardened steel....

Back to the M3s, the photos I took in Coolmoney in 2005 of the remaining M3 VTTs ranged from 7.62mm up to and including 90mm with anything you can think of thrown in.

Comparing the Landsverks and Fords is not equitable where as the Lyland armoured car was of a more similiar layout but with their armour plate...which it was coming from the Peerless cars mounted on a Leyland Terrier chassis.It had been originally envisage the Peerless Trrets and bodies could be transferred directly but proved impossible. The turrets were mounted on the MK IV ford cars...enter the Dodge Cars which were essentially the same body as the MKV mounted on a Dodge Chassis agaiin built from steel plate obtained by Thompsons from the Irish Sugar Company in Carlow.



Front Glascis on M3s and AMLs is the only actual armour plate on the cars an is sloped to increase protection.

All said and done they are bullet magnets as opposed to bullet proof!

Great post Murph, as a matter of interest(and if its not OPSEC) how do the Mowags compare?

hptmurphy
21st August 2012, 13:16
as a matter of interest(and if its not OPSEC) how do the Mowags compare

TBH I don't know, Ihave little interest in Mowags and did very little research on them, No doubt I will find it some where and will post it. I would guesstimate that the manufacturers specs will be published or at least attainable.

almaza
21st August 2012, 15:52
The turrets were mounted on the MK IV ford cars

The Peerless turrets were fitted to the Ford Mk V not the Mk IV.

Aidan
21st August 2012, 17:03
manufacturers specs

All in the public domain, but the PIIIs in Irish service (PIIIH?) have slightly different armour (and it is armour) to the standard Piranha III.

Goldie fish
21st August 2012, 17:19
Wasn't that the stuff that saw cracks in the welds?

hptmurphy
21st August 2012, 17:31
The Peerless turrets were fitted to the Ford Mk V not the Mk IV.

Correct and right, Mk IVs had a turret supplied by GSR with Hotchkiss .303 mounted.


but the PIIIs in Irish service (PIIIH?) have slightly different armour (and it is armour) to the standard Piranha III.

Protection levels are not available from my sources.


http://www.gdels.com/brochures/piranha_3_8x8_eng.pdf

Even General Dynamics are cagey, they'll tell you what it does , but not what it is.

Goldie fish
21st August 2012, 17:47
GD are a nightmare. Worked in a company before that repaired aircraft engine parts. GD wouldn't provide specs of the metal used with the result that it was impossible to weld properly.

Aidan
22nd August 2012, 11:16
It's in the public domain that protection is to STANNAG-4569 Level IV, and some of the technical specs (in terms of armour thickness) were certainly reported at the time of purchase and immediately after when the cracking problem was found and resolved. Can't find those (newspaper) reports now of course.

GoneToTheCanner
22nd August 2012, 15:38
Back to Comets, did the Irish Army keep the 7.92 mm Besa in service, that came as standard with the Comets and Churchills?

regards
GttC

almaza
22nd August 2012, 17:11
Back to Comets, did the Irish Army keep the 7.92 mm Besa in service, that came as standard with the Comets and Churchills?

regards
GttC

Both the Comets and Churchills were armed with two 7.92 mm Besa's in Irish service.

Banner
22nd August 2012, 17:41
Slightly off topic here but for those interested, re the armour on the Pirhana's (taken from wikipedia) STANNAG-4569 Level IV =

Kinetic Energy
14.5mmx114 AP / B32 at 200 meters with 911 m/s[1]

Artillery
155 mm High Explosive at 30 m

Grenade and Mine Blast Threat
10 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine:
4a – Mine Explosion pressure activated under any wheel or track location.
4b – Mine Explosion under center.