Gunners, what am I actually looking at here?

I think I've seen this photo before - forget where I got it from to be honest - and described as an attempt to make a 25 pounder SP out of the "Archer".



Don Juan recently forwarded info to me about an attempt to put the 25 pounder in the Archer in late 1942, which was rejected because 38 degrees of gun elevation could not be obtained, and also "the length of the recuperating mechanism is such that it protrudes outside the mantlet."

The problem... is that I don't think these can be the same vehicle. This is a prototype Archer, the one that was trialed in 1943:



There are number of differences from the production Archer: the grille arrangement is different, the track guards have a curved end, the exhaust is facing backward, and the mantlet is missing the extra lip to give the crew protection. The vehicle with the "25 pounder" has all the features of a production vehicle and so probably dates to 1944.

Looking back at the first photo, is there any chance that could be something other than a 25-pounder gun? A different calibre howitzer, for instance?

 

Sadly the index page doesn't have entries for any Valentine tanks. I think he had access to two albums of photos and the Valentines must have been in the other.

That is a thought, though - I am not sure if the Beamish Museum still has this material, or if it would be elsewhere, but I could try to track down where these albums are and ask an archivist to have a look at the index. That wouldn't exactly be a lot, though.

The covered spotlight visible in the second picture does narrow down the conversion to involve one of the first 300(IIRC) Archers since the spotlight was removed after that. I don't think that really makes a big difference though.

 

PS VP, where did the other side view come from??

The Beamish Museum got right back to me so maybe I will get a tiny bit more information from them.

 

No worries, thanks very much!

Having looked again at the photos I have licensed from the Tank Museum, I paid for a side view image that will be in my book.

 

There's something a lot of people are missing. Which may be an alternative. Especially when you consider a Bishop exists, and has done for some two years previously to the Archer. Equally we have Sexton's at the same time as the Archer. Into that making a 25-lbr Archer seems a bit silly. Unless it was a home brew concoction by a firm off its own back, in which case anything goes.

Thing is, the 25-pounder was an extremely well understood gun, and thus was often used for trials to simulate another weapon to test recoil and mountings. Famously the Australians used two 25-pounders for testing the recoil forces on the Sentinel tank. I would advance the idea this is what's happening here. It's a set up to test recoil of firing a gun. Maybe there's some aspect of the AFV they want to test subjected to large recoil stresses. Maybe there's concern over the engine/engine deck being so close to the blast, or the brakes in their exposed wheel hubs?
Especially as the weapon is missing it's muzzle break. If you take the muzzle break off the 25-lbr you can't fire a full power shot, as the mount can't take it. The weight is negligible for this item, so it seems utterly stupid to remove it. Unless you want the gun to be behaving in a certain way, like producing a large amount of recoil or blast. I mean in the idea of the engine deck, it could have been calculated that a 25-lbr without the muzzle brake creates the same level of blast as a 17lbr, with it's longer barrel, over the area that is of concern.

 

Interesting idea, Listy!

 

I should note that Vickers at Chertsey famously put a 6 pounder in the Alecto, despite this never having been an official requirement. so they had form in creating unexpected gun/vehicle combinations in order to leave posterity something to ponder.

 

I don't think Vickers-Armstrongs at Chertsey preserved any of their archives. Or if they, did, they were not deposited anywhere obvious, or were deposited within a larger collection of other items. For all we know, there are probably naval historians researching Vickers warships who keep coming across tank documents and just find them an annoyance.

 

now complete the sentence:
'...in 1943/44.'

 

Thing is, stuff like this normally needs confirmation from government. There's bugger all point to a 25-lbr Archer at that point in the war, in any way shape or form. I've only ever seen docs about one unsolicited modification before, and that was someone re-working a Bombard. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that I find the test bed more likely, especially as that's said to be a prototype Archer.

 

Yes, but you have to remember that Vickers-Armstrongs were bona fide merchants of death who liked to export their products. For example they tried to sell a de-gunned Alecto to Norway and Austria as an artillery tractor. Whether this was to get rid of the last dregs of Alecto production, or to keep the line open in the post-war era, I don't know.

They may have attempted a 25 pdr Archer to sell overseas for similar reasons. Like the Alecto artillery tractor, it probably wasn't a particularly attractive product, but they might still have thought the effort worthwhile.

That said, I'm not arguing against your test bed thesis, as I think that is a valid supposition.

 

I'll add my support for a vehicle test mounting - there is a discrepency in the details around potential dates - the modified Valentine chassis used for Archer was a 1943+ design, after muzzle brakes were standard on 25pdr.

 

I did my undergraduate placement at Beamish in 1980 so got a mooch through the library. Amongst the many trade catalalogues I didn't see that album they did however have a manual for the Alecto.

 

Thank you ceolredmonger! That's the kind of detail I was not aware of.

 

Turner Donovan's new catalogue also has an Alecto manual for a mere £100.

Regarding the 'Archer prototype' above, has the possibility of a Vickers HV 75mm been ruled out as a 'what if we put one of these on one of those' experiment? I can't see why a 17-pr wouldn't have its muzzle brake, unless it was thought necessary to avoid backblast onto the tank's rear.