When tanks were shipped to North Africa was the sand camoflague painted over the existing green camo or where they finished in sand from the factory? I've been looking at images from the IWM and when they've got a bit tatty is green showing through , primer or bare metal? For example........ Newly-arrived Royal Armoured Corps troops working on a variety of tank types at a training camp near Abbasia in Egypt, 2 March 1943. In the foreground are a Valentine and Stuart tank, with Crusaders and more Valentines behind. On the right is a Covenanter tank, perhaps the only example of its kind to have arrived in North Africa. An officer of the Seaforth Highlanders, part of the 51st (Highland) Division, talking with the crew of a Valentine tank during training in the Western Desert, 3 October 1942. Unlike this very newly painted one. Valentine tank and Universal carrier of 40th Royal Tank Regiment, 8th Armoured Division at Warren Camp, Crowborough in Sussex, 22 December 1941. The regiment was about to embark for the Middle East, hence the desert camouflage. Same one with Daimler Scout car behind instead of Carrier. Nicely battered one here.
Ive been thinking the same ting Owen only the other way round I did my Grant in sand and thne i shipped it off to Burma, I rubbed the green on the corners to see the sane underneath as if the paint was worn through to the inner coat. Im going to try it on a big Jerry, I wil lpaint it Red led and then top coat, then rub the corners to expose the primer. Kev
Doing a Captured T34 at the moment, done the German colours over the Russian and even though I used the same type of paint it is possible to gently scratch through to the colour underneath, (though a coat of Varnish between would have made it easier). Going a step further with a winter white scheme over all that is the next part of the plan... I have a feeling this is where it will all go badly wrong. None of this helps with the question though... Scratch one next time you see a Matilda to find out?
Just spoke to ex-Sgt Norman Irwin. he was in charge of No 7 (REME) Workshop in Tel el Kebir in Egypt around 1941 - 1942. They worked there in 12 hour shifts round the clock throughout the war in the desert. Here follows some of the things he said.... All equipment came off the ships and went to the workshops before going on to units. In some cases the engines of vehicles had been sabotaged by filling them with peat. All the equipment, including tanks arrived at the workshops painted either battleship grey or else a buff sandy colour. All vehicles, after 1939, arrived with a 10-12 degree tilt in the windscreen. The top of the windscreen had the leading edge so that sunlight or moonlight was reflected down and didnt give your position away. The Honey tanks had rubber pads on the tracks, an air cooled 270 radial engine but were likely to burst into flames. All pre 1939 vehicles had metal cabs behind the driver. To cope with enemy aircraft all the cabs had to be cut off the vehicles and lorrys. On some heavy duty lorries and recovery vehicles the cab was too big to cut off so a hole had to be cut in the roof for aircraft spotting.
very nice looking tank is the valentine,so is the crusader.probably get lashed now.yours very sincerely,lee.
The crusaders and valentines were nice looking tanks, but definitely not the favorites amongst the RTR. Most of the valentines never saw action in Greece because they broke down before they reached the front lines. Also, I remember reading an account of a group from the 4th County of London Yeomanry (the Sharpshooters) waiting to draw some new tanks before El-Alamein. They were hoping for Grants but, to their disapointment, were given brand new Crusaders instead. The account went on to say that they were ferried to the front line and then driven off on their own power. Withing about 10 miles half of the their crusaders had broken down. Also when a crusader was shot up, the driver would be trapped if the turret was positioned in a certain way.
Now the Crusader, I can concede, was widely disliked and apparently a maintenance nightmare. The Valentine however seems to garner more bouquets than brickbats among the men that used 'em. It's a far more common story to read of Units being rather regretful when it came to replacing their very reliable Valentines with later vehicles. I must confess I'm puzzled by the reference to Valentines sent to Greece, as the type first went into battle in November/December 41, and the initial Greek business ran from March-May of that year. On general vehicle failures there; 1941 Greek-service tanks fell to a combination of horrendous conditions and failing logistics (It was particularly problematic for the A10's of 3RTR which came direct from 5RTR with already almost worn out tracks.). Any vehicle operating in that mud would break eventually and it was a lack of spares that kept them out of use, something that can disable any machine as effectively as gunfire. Cheers, Adam.
I must confess I'm puzzled by the reference to Valentines sent to Greece, as the type first went into battle in November/December 41, and the initial Greek business ran from March-May of that year. On general vehicle failures there; 1941 Greek-service tanks fell to a combination of horrendous conditions and failing logistics (It was particularly problematic for the A10's of 3RTR which came direct from 5RTR with already almost worn out tracks.). My mistake, I've confused the Valentine with the Matilda. And it may have been the A10's with all the breakdowns. Been a very long time since I read about the Greek campaign.:mellow:
