Sherman ARV at Camp Borden??

[Robert Bergeron]

Friends,

I just spent last week in Borden. See my posts in the Sergeants Mess.

I consider myself lucky there was a museum to be visited, monuments and gate guards to be seen.

I was a bit shocked to learn that the Firefly Sherman posing as Major Radley-Walter's was not in fact .

But then , it is a nice reminder of his great contribution.

i like original and correctly represented and i like reminders, tributes. But it should be clearly labeled . Truthfullness is better .

[Dan Martel]

Originally Posted by Robert Bergeron

Friends,
I was a bit shocked to learn that the Firefly Sherman posing as Major Radley-Walter's was not in fact.

Was not a Sherman Firefly or was not the one actually used by Radley-Walters?

Cheers,
Dan.

[Robert Bergeron]

Was not in fact used by RW. I stand corrected .

[Dan Martel]

Rob,

I just now read your visiting Borden thread in the Sergeant's Mess, which I probably should've done before I asked you my question.

Further to your excellent photograph of the alleged Firefly in question, I wonder who in the museum thought that painting Radley-Walters' surname on the turret would make it look authentic to the War? Especially painted in an overall coat of 'interior green'? I'm not denigrating the hard work of the volunteers, but it's really not that hard to get the details right.

Just my 2 pfennings.

Cheers,
Dan.

[Darrell Zinck]

Originally Posted by Dan Martel

...I wonder who in the museum thought that painting Radley-Walters' surname on the turret would make it look authentic to the War? ...
Cheers,
Dan.

Dan

It is common in the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps (RCAC) to name tank and other armoured monuments after Corps/Regt'l notables.

At Regiments, one can see such person's names and battle honours "named" on monument tanks. Nothing to do with A, B, C, etc Squadrons having names or forceful adjectives on their "in use" vehicles that begin with that Sqn letter. That is something else entirely and wholly dictated by the Regiment. Been there and done that.

At the School in Gagetown the RCACS tank monuments out front are named to the Director Armour, Corps Colonel Commandant etc and are changed as those serving appointments change. The actual tanks that the school used in (then) A, B, and C Sqns got names that began with those letters. Tac signs too.

Yes, many civilian monuments at Legions and the like are done up in correct battle paint and markings for a period they're representing but often are not even the right Mark or Model. A Sherman is a Sherman is a Sherman to some minds. Wasn't Radley-Walters' painted gold at some point?

As for Borden, well, it is the home of the Corps and Worthy and Larry are there. The Base Museum has had quite a few vehicles to care for. I know the Corps helps out in some fashion with the Monument tanks in Worthington Park. Some are gone to Ottawa now though. I recall a willing young Militia lass and the back deck of the Panther one summer night back in the 80's.................. bless her!

Anyways, as I'm rambling, I'll drop out but there is a difference between serving vehicles and Corps/Regt'l Monument naming.

[Robert Bergeron]

Friends. I have read your comments . I believe everybody involved are doing their best . Thanks for the info Darrell.

[Dan Martel]

Originally Posted by Darrell Zinck

It is common in the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps (RCAC) to name tank and other armoured monuments after Corps/Regt'l notables.

At Regiments, one can see such person's names and battle honours "named" on monument tanks.

At the School in Gagetown the RCACS tank monuments out front are named to the Director Armour, Corps Colonel Commandant etc and are changed as those serving appointments change.

As for Borden, well, it is the home of the Corps and Worthy and Larry are there.

...there is a difference between serving vehicles and Corps/Regt'l Monument naming.

Thanks Darrell,

This is something that I'd never considered. In the context you've presented it is probably more than fitting that Radley-Walters be honoured in such a way.

To me initially, it looked like the museum was trying to make a up a faux Firefly look like it was the one operated by RW himself. (And doing a lousy job of it.) I like your reasoning much better.

Cheers,
Dan.

[SteveM]

Hi there.

FNG here and this actually (Partly) answers for me a question I have had since 2001.

Back when I was up in Borden then on a cadet course; I spotted this beast at a distance down the road while we were being marched somewhere. I knew right away that it was an M74, but not a thing about M74s being used by the CF at any time.

I asked and was told that was the EME school and that they restored things like that there in order to learn skills. They also had an M5 40mm Bofors nearby at another EME building.

At the time, Borden seemed full of fenced-off compounds with odd old equipment in; little fenced squares here and there, with say; a CF-5 and an old M211-series 4x6 truck and little else, including space!

Later, when I came back; I noted that the M74 was not to be found on display anywhere and I always wondered what happened to it. A Book I had on restored WWII tanks suggested that collectors and restorers valued ARVs as work horses for moving other projects around and moving heavy parts and so I wondered if that might not be it's fate.

I would still very much like to know what the school used it for, if anything.

More recently, I have been to Kingston and saw the M74 here, but did not know it was the same vehicle; I presumed, as one would that it was being displayed as part of the REME Museum collection, but thought the paint scheme did look odd and the markings were incorrect even from a distance.

Sad to know more of this story, but still wonder about M74s in the CF and what this one was used for before it was disabled.

I beg your pardon if me bringing this back after so long is a bother.