Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comet Footage
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostVery 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
Comment
-
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.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 1
Comment
-
The landsverks were reengined with straight Eight Ford engine , I think the Origional was a Bussing
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.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphy View PostOriginally 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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
I think the presence of a few tanks, even obsolete one
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.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herald View PostWeren'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 ?
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
-
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?Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
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
Comment
Comment