Joined: May 3rd, 2018, 3:39 pm

August 3rd, 2018, 11:54 pm #11

Well as I thought heavy duty lifting points of some sort.
 That were not required when loading or unloading in North Africa as this feature does not show up on any pictures of Grants in that theatre of war, nor on the Grants shipped out to Australia.
 So I thank you all for your comments and for me some new photo's  of Grants.
 I think the link will be from the two Regt's War diary's and LAD Reports.
Thanks again to everybody and this was my first post after watching for over 10 yrs and I started with a typo. Grants in Burma

Nick
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 23rd, 2013, 2:38 am

August 4th, 2018, 1:07 am #12

Given the conditions of the roads in Burma, could these cable/shackle points been added to aid recovery after ditching? 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3rd, 2018, 3:39 pm

August 4th, 2018, 10:13 am #13

The roads are still bad..
A high tow point would not help in recovery, as most Tanks were stopped by track damage from land mines, laid and hand held .
 If they went off the side of the road they stayed off, as a 100 foot drop was not unusual this was the fate of the Tank that I am studying.
Nick
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 7th, 2005, 1:45 pm

August 6th, 2018, 1:22 am #14

Pics of brand new Grants being lifted by their tow eyes, omewhere in the Middle East  (click on the images to get to the IWM page were you can zoom in):

THE BRITISH ARMY IN THE MIDDLE EAST 1942. © IWM (E 9226) IWM Non Commercial License


THE BRITISH ARMY IN THE MIDDLE EAST 1942. © IWM (E 9222) IWM Non Commercial License

On the second photo one can see a piece of timber between the cable and the rear plate.

On this photo, the cables look like they are passed under the hull of the tank:

THE BRITISH ARMY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 1939-45. © IWM (H 21034) IWM Non Commercial License

I believe that the brackets on the Burma Grants are related to the wading stacks, which probably covered the rear towing eyes or made them unusable (and also prevented a cable from being passed under the tank), so when the tank was unloaded from a ship onto a lighter of some sort, these brackets would be used instead. The welds look strong enough for that, actually they are longer than those on the towing eyes and should therefore be stronger.

Michel
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3rd, 2018, 3:39 pm

August 6th, 2018, 10:21 am #15

These photos are exactly what I hoped for, they prove that the Tanks were unloaded on docks exactly as shown, but when fitted with the deep wading gear this could not be achieved as the baulk of timber crossing over the back would demolish the extra fittings, therefore needing the new lift locations. I believe that both Regt's underwent sea landing training from lighters, directly into the surf.  This was tried due to shortages of Landing craft an idea that after training seems to have been dropped.
Nick
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 22nd, 2018, 11:32 am

August 6th, 2018, 12:02 pm #16

Tom Waits once said: "There's nothing more I enjoy than being absolutley sure about something and then being proven wrong."
Well it does look now that those weld runs have been tried and tested for a direct lift. Although, lifting such a mass overhead by the tow shackels does seem a bit risky to me ... Anyhow, all's well that ends well.
Gareth

P.S. I still can't help thinking, that these fittings could have been bent down at a later date as ancoring points for applique armour.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 10th, 2016, 11:49 pm

August 6th, 2018, 7:16 pm #17

A lifting eye makes some sense.  

If the lifting slings shown above were not available or able to be improvised (the Far East theatre being somewhat more impoverished and austere than ETO), lifting a tank might be awkward. It wouldn't make much difference at the front whether the cable passed under the tank or attached to the front lugs.  And with the shape of the front, attaching cables in a crowded hold would be feasible.  But at the back, the lifting points would be right at the bottom edge of the rear hull.  Attaching or feeding cables in a hold might be very difficult, and a deck-level attachment point might be easier.  In either case - long strops under the hull or cables attached to the rear lugs - the cables would foul on the upper rear hull overhang and put considerable weight and pressure on it.  I wonder if this improvisation is a response to vehicles damaged during lifting.

The fact that these brackets have reinforcement around the holes suggests major weight bearing intent, not just an attachment for (e.g.) wading stack stays.  The M4s of course had lifting eyes fitted on the rear deck to solve that problem, implying that the M3 lifting arrangements were perhaps less than satisfactory.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 18th, 2013, 11:02 pm

August 10th, 2018, 1:43 pm #18

I agree with Peter.  The lugs are angled exactly as one would expect if used for a four point lift.  It's just too difficult to access the rear shackles or go under the hull, and the shape of the diesel hulls at the rear only makes it more difficult.  The cables would invariably be bearing on plate edges and corners.  This damages the cables, damages the plates, and will cause some amount of sliding and shifting until the weight of the tank settles in.  That last bit is probably the biggest issue, as having a load slip, jump, and bounce is disconcerting at the least and fatal at the most.  The washer-like reinforcements are telling: This is common where a shackle is installed and the primary stresses warrant a thinner plate than pin-bearing stresses (or just the width of the shackle) would dictate.  (In other words, you would not make the whole thing out of 2-inch plate when 1-inch plate works everywhere but at the eye.)  I think it is telling that lifting lugs were included on the design of the Sherman from the start.  As to the strength of the attaching welds, compare these to those holding the hoisting eye (as they were called) onto a Sherman hull!  What's surprising to me is that something like this wasn't added as part of the T2/M31 conversion.  I'm guessing the engineers could not make something work on the riveted structure with an acceptable safety factor while the depot  that designed this probably only looked at the loads on the welds and the lug itself.

Regarding the title, can't that be changed?  I've been viewing this in the index for awhile and keep wondering what people in SE Asia are so angry about . . .🙂

KL
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3rd, 2018, 3:39 pm

August 10th, 2018, 3:26 pm #19

Thank you Kurt and I agree that the need for a solution to a problem in the field is widely different to a production problem.
As for my type error I am so very sorry if this has offended any body but I do not know how to amend this, I have tried to alter it, the same with my name which is nick not nicl but I hit the L not K and missed the Capital G and I hate computers.
Nick
Quote
Like
Share