Vickers MMG spent cases
 

Hi Colin,

Yes, makes much more sense now. The belt feeds from the ammo box in the centre tray attached to the mount which, as you have said, moved with the gun's elevation, thereby retaining the correct belt feed-belt port angle as the cloth belt feeds through the gun, and into the catch tray/box on the left side which fits into the bump-out in the turret wall.

Vickers MMG spent cases were ejected downwards from the centre line of the weapon, and would normally be collected in a canvas catch bag attached to the underside of the gun or down a short chute into a box. They would not be allowed to free-fall into the lower reaches of the turret for obvious reasons.

As I understand it, the Vickers .50 HMG was essentialy an MMG on steroids - ie fed the same way, so both weapons in the MkVIA fed from the right, ejected spent cases from the underside, and fed the empty cloth belt out the left side. NOPE - see edit.....

EDIT: I've just had a look at some images of Royal Naval use of the .50 inch Vickers (common in the early stages of WW2 as a close-in AA weapon on ships), and it shows drum magazines feeding from either left or right, so maybe the .50 in the tank fed from the left side (from the ammo box in the tray fixed to the mount) and the empty belt fed out the right side into the box mounted in the holder mounted on the turret wall, as visible in the AWM RYPA image. That would make the most sense given the configuration of the ammo box holders in the various images.


Mike

From a quick squiz at a Vickers book, the .5" inch cal. is descibed as a MkV gun, which is an AFV gun. It can be used and fed as a right or left fed gun.

The Thot Plickens
 

Colin,
The turret bulge issue looks to be solved, but I think there has been some confusion as to the extractor fan.

Looking again at the drawings, I note that on the page that gives multi view drawings of the turret, I now see the bulge detail is totally different (cannot quote a number).

That drawing is for the Mk VI C, as is probably that one showing the fan.

The Mk VI C had the 15mm and 9.2mm BESA's fitted.

I have one photo of a captured Mk VI C from a Japanese magazine which shows this cover, and is most definitely for extracting fumes. So I think we have mix of drawings.

George.
Attachment 99180

MkVI C Turret
 

Attachment 99184

This is the drawing I referred to earlier.

George

Thanks, Lynn, for the confirmation.

I think that pretty much confirms that both MGs fed from ammo boxes in the tray fixed to the mount, the .303 from the right, the .50 from the left, with the empty belts going into the 'collector'trays/boxes mounted on the left and right turret walls respectively. Empty cases ejected into some sort of bag or box under each gun: anyone got any references to that aspect?

George - in the Japenese image, the tank seems to have a Wermacht number plate, so an image of a captured vehicle perhaps? Pity I cannot read Japanese. As for the fan, the Besa was renowned for being a 'fumy' weapon - plenty of references to the 7.92 Besa in the Mk3 Centurion producing overpowering fumes - maybe that's why the Besa-armed Vickers needed an extractor fan?

Mike

The 7.92 Besa was almost universally used as the co-ax weapon in WW2 British tanks so must have been acceptable then.

I note that in the Japanese photo the bowden cable that fires the 4" smoke discharger can clearly be seen coming out of the protecting cover behind it. So that removes any doubt about that.

David

David, I agree with you that the 7.92mm Besa was almost universally used on Brit WW2 tanks as a co-ax, hence its use in the Centurion Mk3 as well (replaced by the Browning .30cal to become a Centurion Mk5).

It was nevertheless well known as a very 'fumy' weapon.

Mike

That most certainly does clarify a lot of questions and George you have to be spot on with what Mk that drawing is. I have looked at that drawing along with lots of others and not been able to work out what it is. Some of the other drawings I have are for the Mkv1b because of the air intake cover but fortunately there appears to be very little difference between the rest of the A,B and C variants.
Richard, I am quite fortunate to have a couple of drawings of the retractable signalling light and have already found two glass covers that appear to be identical which I will post when I get to that stage. Thank you everyone for sharing your information and knowledge.
Colin.

Re photo
 

The photo is from a Japanese mag, and shows a captured Mk VIC, but I have other photographs of BEF and others, ALL showing the fan cover.
The one I posted was the best of the bunch and not intended to mislead.

George.

George,

I wasn't suggesting such - not at all. I was simply interested to see it was a captured example, that's all.

Mike

sorry
 

Mike,
Sorry if I seem to have over-reacted, just that I mistook the comment that being "under new management" it was a conversion made by them rather than a standard fitting.
It would seem then that the MkIV B did not have an extractor fan, as the drawings with the fan plus the one I posted are VI C turret.

George.

Now that we have everything clarified :teach: :eek: :note: :no4: :doh: :) I am now into the turret fabrication. The bottom section had to be cut for a flat plate so I made a tracing jig to get the correct angle and it took about an hour to cut the section out and clean up. I will cut the other one before I progress any more.

A bit more progress on the turrets.

They are now both sitting on the bearing and roll so easy and level. I have cut the main pieces and will continue with angle iron to join it all together with rivets. Without measuring my M3 Stuart turret I would have to say it could be a little bit bigger.

Getting much progress. :)

And more progress.

I would just like to thank Russ Gregg from Canada who has taken the time to go to the Borden Museum and take a lot of photos and measurements for me. It is help like this that makes this forum invaluable in the restoration of these machines. Thankyou Russ :note: :salute: :cheers:

Just a small update as to my progress on the turrets. They are both progressing but not too fast as there is a lot of hand cutting and grinding to make everything fit as it should.

No worries Colin, I'm glad to be able to contribute in even the smallest way to this spectacular undertaking. I hope to make it to your side of the globe one day and will certainly stop by for a visit. :salute:

Russ, I too hope you can make it over this side of the world one day.
Another eventful day as I got both covers cut out, drilled and bolted on but I still need to get the correct bolts.

Hi Colin,
Still enjoying following your progress.
Is the engine in the Vickers a Meadows engine?
If so, if you are on Facebook there was a post today on the HCVC, Historic Commercial Vehicle Club, (Australia), of a fellow with a 6 cylinder diesel Meadows engine he had running.
Though yours is petrol if I remember correctly.
Cheers Tim

Try this.

http://www.facebook.com/100009284014...0947747891340/

Thanks for linking the video, I couldn’t do it for some reason cheers

Hi Tim,
That is a much bigger engine, about 11 litres as I recall, fitted in trucks and plant. I have worked on both the 6 and 4 cylinder versions. Nothing like the Meadows in the Vickers light tank though.
As an aside, the 6 cyl diesel engine was converted to petrol for use in the Scammell Explorer 6x6 breakdown tractor which was used by the British Army from the 1950's.

regards, Richard

Thanks for the info and link. I just got off the phone with Steve the owner of the engine and he informed me that it was indeed a industrial engine probably out of a compressor or similar and way bigger than the Vickers engine. I would still consider one if it had been of the same dimensions but again thanks for letting me know.
Colin. :thup2:

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the follow up.
I’m sure with the following you have there are many eyes looking out and ears to the ground.
You just never know your luck.

Cheers Tim

I have done the spotlight brackets vent covers and the viewing port plates.

Here i'm making the gun port elevation end plates which are laminated and riveted. I used my hole punch to press the rivets into a countersunk hole and ground off the excess to make a flat surface as that is what is required.

This part required an external radius to match the pieces I had already made and there certainly is not a great deal of elevation for the guns. I could imagine if the tank went down a ditch or a smallish hill you would not be able to get the guns low or high enough to do any shooting. Perhaps they just stopped every time they wanted to empty their rounds at some thing. Anyway they are starting to look like Vickers turrets now but they will look better when I complete the gun ports. :)

It's really neat taking a picture of something and seeing it appear on the other side of the world a few days later. :note: