still in use commercially....

[tankbarrell]

That yarder is not on a Grizzly chassis, or if it is, all of the features identifying it as such have been changed.

[things_green]

as I stated Adrian, I'm no armor expert......So if its not based on a Grizzley....just a fan of things green....
so what was it?

the original image I snapped while passing on a train....so I went back (what else would one be doing on Christmas Eve?).....and took some better shots.

[tankbarrell]

Brent, almost impossible to say without a close look but the transmission is the late single piece which was not used on Grizzly. The tracks are T47 rubber chevron and these are features generally seen on 'standard' US production vehicles. It could be Sherman based or M7 Priest.

Of course, all those parts are interchangeable as assemblies so it could have started as a Grizzly and the steel CDP track and sprockets could have been changed to rubber for road use but it seems unlikely that the complete transmission assembly would also have been changed.

It could be Sexton based but it has Sherman bogies whereas most Sextons had specific bogies but again they could have been changed.

Because of that, it would need a close examination to determine its origins and that assumes enough original material is left to allow that!

[Luke R]

Just a thought, Could there be a bit of confusion between Madill a Canadian based company that built spar yarders on sherman/HST chassis's and the Grizzly the Canadian built shermans.

Luke

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Luke R

Just a thought, Could there be a bit of confusion between Madill a Canadian based company that built spar yarders on sherman/HST chassis's and the Grizzly the Canadian built shermans.

Luke

Any similarity would be coincidental. From what I've read, the most common donor chassis was the M32 ARV followed by the HVSS postwar Sherman. So much so, the model number is repeated in their conversion model number. I haven't seen anything that suggests country of origin, but there would have been enough surplus vehicles in the fifties and sixties to meet demand. And, from what I can tell, these arrived already demilitarized (saves the freight).

As has been implied, the modular design of the M4 is the key to the success of the Madill spar yarders. The three-sided chassis is tied together on the front with a final drive, with three (or four!) suspension stations per side, and whatever engine the company liked. As far as I can tell, the logging companies didn't want anything old or esoteric. They needed dependable, fixable and cheap fittings. Whether it is the engine to move the yarder around, or the winch drives, these were not nostalgic items. These are hard working tools! Used until the contract or season was done, fixed enough to make the month end, and if the company has to slim down, whatever will sell fast at auction goes out of the yard. Gradually, the heavy duty excavators seem to have taken over as the platform for spar yarders.

[things_green]

thankyou all for taking the time too answer....I am already a few hundred percent up on my Armour 'expertise'

another 1,000% and I may even know something!

Just for my own interest I'll trot along and speak too the owners....see if I can score some close-ups or internal images.

all the best for your greenery in 2013.

Brent

[David Herbert]

Brent,

If you do get a chance of close examination of 'your' yarder, the following would be good to look for:

1) Different models of Shermans had different engines and this caused differences in the rear armour (other end to the sprockets!). A photo of the area between the idlers would eliminate some versions.
2) Similarly the original engines had unique designs of access plates in the floor. As the yarder is stood in your photos you might get a usefull photo of the rear four feet of the underside of the hull.
3) As built the hull had towing eyes at the rear vaguely like the ones on the transmission casting. There was often but not always, a shop no. stamped into one or more towing eyes. Quite often this is rather lightly stamped so you have to scrape the paint off to see it - might not be welcomed!
4) Is there signs of the original emergency escape hatch (approx 2' square) in the floor just behind the transmission to the right of centre. Sextons didn't have this, don't think Priests did either.
5) Is there the remains of the 1/2" thick plate that ran the length of the tank above the tracks and closed the horisontal gap between the lower hull and the side of the upper hull. This was welded to the top edge of the 1 1/2" thick lower hull side and the signs of this should be visible somewhere. If not it may be that the lower hull 'tub' is not actually from a tank at all, but home made with Sherman running gear added.

Us tank nuts need more info !

Happy new year to all

David