time to strip the old girl - Page 2

ron · #31 15-06-07, 11:34

Hi Hanno,
Yes certainly I will remove them on Sunday and save them, now regarding the sprockets ,if you have a quick look at one of my posts on this subject, called drive parts, you will see the circle of bolts in a ring, that ring is a carrier track support ring and on the side wher the M H logo is you can see the heads of the usual number of carrier track support ring and sprocket bolts,its a normal carrier sprocket, I guess they used the carrier track system as there were plenty of carrier parts Eg wheels and tracks where as tank parts and tracks would have been much harder to source I am willing to trade off these parts if some one needs them to complete a project
Regards,
Ron

Hanno Spoelstra · #32 15-06-07, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by ron
now regarding the sprockets ,if you have a quick look at one of my posts on this subject, called drive parts, you will see the circle of bolts in a ring, that ring is a carrier track support ring and on the side wher the M H logo is you can see the heads of the usual number of carrier track support ring and sprocket bolts,its a normal carrier sprocket,

Ron,

Upon closer inspection I now see the hub is indeed of Marmon Herrington origin, while the sprocket is of carrier origin.

So you have found the following Marmon-Herrington Two Man tank parts:

1) controlled differential:

2) reduction boxes:

3) hubs:

Linked from Carrier country

Question remains whether the hull extension and 6 cylinder engine also orginated from the MH tank. What about the gearbox?

This find is becoming more and more interesting!

Thanks & regards,
Hanno

gordon · #33 15-06-07, 19:19

Well those flathead sixes ran from about 1934 to 1970-ish, so it could have been early enough, but if I had to guess the horsepower wouldn't have moved a light tank very fast, so it was probably a T214 or the like from WW2.

If you had the engine you could have had a look for the engineering code on the top left corner of the block, just below the head joint.

Plushy · #34 16-06-07, 02:41

Hi Guys
Hanno is right its defiantely a Marmon Herrington tank of some kind i was looking at the drive sprockets and they look a lot like the Marmon-Herrington Tracked Jeep sprockets on this page :
http://www.geocities.com/marmonherrington/tractor.html

So i wonder now if its a bitsa using a box of army surplus parts maybe ?

cheers Plushy

ron · #35 17-06-07, 04:18

Hi Hanno,
I have removed the original tank mounting plates see pic
Regards,
Ron,

ron · #36 17-06-07, 04:21

Hanno the gear box can be seen just behind the mounting plate in the previous photo,

ron · #37 17-06-07, 04:24

This shows where I removed the plate from

ron · #38 17-06-07, 04:39

Hello guys,
The Hull as you can see is defiantely the remains of a carrier and nothing else, and there has never been any other suggestion that it is any thing else other than a carrier,I have been involved with carriers for close on 45 years, its the remains of a later model carrier, I judge this by the welding and signs of the remains of the various brackets now removed, the spockets whilst appearing to be different are mounted to an adapter plate this gives them a different appearence but there is no doubt that they are carrier sprockets, in fact they simply could not be anything else when you consider that they are being used with carrier track, the son told that they used the tank parts,and that his father and uncle fitted,and in the sons own words a large six cylinder engine< I dont think for one moment that the engine that I left behind was an original engine, just simply one that they had on hand at the time, its an interesting thing thats for sure, regards
ron

Lynn Eades · #39 17-06-07, 12:46

Thanks Hanno and Ron.
Its now seams obvious that it's all tank out to where the double drive sprocket carrier was mounted. They've done away with that, and fitted a flat plate to which, the inside of, they've mounted the carrier sprocket.
Ron,1.Is it likely that the current sprocket carrier was cut from the original inner carrier?
2.Is it possible that the gearbox was also original?

ron · #40 17-06-07, 13:10

Hello Lyn,
Yes I think that what you suggest about the sprocket carrier is true,I must take some more pics of the gear box, there is a pic of it behind the mounting plate that I had removed, thats proberly not the correct name for it but we both know what I mean,its just a small retanguler box, looks very uncomplicated but then I guess all gear boxes look similar, thanks for showing an interest in this,I am very pleased that I have saved it from the scrappies,
Regards,
Ron,

ron · #41 17-06-07, 13:17

Hi Lyn,
Here is the gear box,
Ron,

ron · #42 17-06-07, 13:21

another shot

gordon · #43 17-06-07, 13:23

Hello Ron

That 'U' shaped radiator frame right in the foreground looks like a 39-47 Dodge one and probably matches the engine.

Was the radiator still there ? usable? If it did match the engine it might be either a honeycomb or foil core construction which were in use up to around 1940

ron · #44 17-06-07, 13:25

maybe this time

ron · #45 17-06-07, 13:29

Hello Gordon,
Thanks for the information, No the radiator was not there proberly sold long ago to the scrappies, thanks for your interest,
Regards,
Ron,

ron · #46 17-06-07, 13:32

Lyn ,
Here is a better pic

Lynn Eades · #47 18-06-07, 08:57

Ron, are you going to take the lid off, or can you establish how many gears? It is a very short box, so maybe it's just a fwd/rev. box, and ran a separate gear box.
Hanno, what power unit drove this tank? do you have any info on the drive line?
Id guess that the big diff is fairly simple inside and probably has a couple of brakes inside as opposed to steering clutches, which would make the steering a bit crude and jerky.

ron · #48 18-06-07, 12:43

Hi Lyn,
Yes I will take the top of the box off,but that will have to wait for a few weeks, we are moving from here as we speak and have only three weeks to go until we are in the new place we have a lot of gear to move, and also a small heard of Indian Chital deer, so it full on at the moment, thats the main reason for draging home and stripping this carrier as soon as I can all of the M H parts will be leaving here on Wednesday for the new place,along with some Matilda parts and quite a bit of carrier parts,
Regards,
Ron

Pedr · #49 18-06-07, 17:50

Geez mate I'd be hanging onto that hull for a little while longer, until we've all done a little more research...

...You'd be kicking yourself if you later realize a piece that's original and needed to rebuild this tank went to China on the scrap boat.

Are you sure you won't have the room to take it too.

This might be the next project that you need....much better than a repro carrier and WAY more rare.

Just my penneth ha'penny's worth.

Pedr

Hanno Spoelstra · #50 18-06-07, 19:07

Quote:

Originally posted by ron
Hanno the gear box can be seen just behind the mounting plate in the previous photo,

Thanks Ron. As Lynn said, it is a very short box, so I wonder if it is the gearbox originally fitted to the MH tank?

Quote:

Originally posted by Lynn Eades
Hanno, what power unit drove this tank? do you have any info on the drive line?
Id guess that the big diff is fairly simple inside and probably has a couple of brakes inside as opposed to steering clutches, which would make the steering a bit crude and jerky.

As stated earlier, the CTLS-series were fitted with a Hercules 6-cylinder petrol engine. An engine casting mark found by Ron turned out to be a Chrysler Dodge Plymouth De Soto logo. Gordon also remarked the radiator support looks like a Dodge product. So the engine does not look like it came from the Marmon-Herrington. This is explicable by the fact that the owners of Ron's carrier could have well obtained only parts of the Two Man Tank, as they were declared obsolete and handed over to the Ford Motor Company of Geelong, Victoria, in December 1943 where they were dismantled. The armour plate was used in Australian-made landing craft, and the engines would also be used in water craft.

The exact drive line specifications of the CTLS-4TAC / -4TAY are as of yet unknown. This is why Ron's discovery and documentation is so important

It's predecessor, the Marmon-Herrington CTL-3, built in 1935, reflected a good deal of Marmon-Herrington's experience with truck manufacture and was fitted with a truck type air-boosted track locking system for steering. The US Marine Corps tankers found it too weak and vulnerable to breakdown and requested a redesign which would incorporate a conventional controlled differential steering. While this request was turned down at the time, I'm sure controlled differential steering was incorporated in the design of the CTLS, as were several other features of the US M2A4 Light Tank. Also, the last tank built by Marmon-Herrington, the M22 Locust, had a four speed transmission with a controlled differential located at the front of the tank.

Quote:

Id guess that the big diff is fairly simple inside and probably has a couple of brakes inside as opposed to steering clutches, which would make the steering a bit crude and jerky.

Although the "Cletrac" or Controlled Differential Steering system is not the most advanced, I would not say the steering was a bit crude and jerky. The system is quite efficient and was widely used in military vehicles during WW II; even today it is used in the M113-series of APCs.

H.

Hanno Spoelstra · #51 18-06-07, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by ron
we are moving from here as we speak and have only three weeks to go until we are in the new place we have a lot of gear to move, and also a small heard of Indian Chital deer, so it full on at the moment

Ron,

Good luck with the house move! I've just finished moving house, it's always a lot more work than foreseen.

Regards,
Hanno

Keith Webb · #52 19-06-07, 01:37

Have just dug up some more information about the fate of these tanks in Australian service...

Apparently we had 147 or so and their destinty was to be broken up during the war... the armour was cut up and used on landing craft to armour the helm, whilst the Hercules engines were used to power Phillipines lighters, with 4 engines going into each boat.

So the remaining mechanical parts were disposed of, probably mostly scrapped which makes this find all the more interesting.

This is why there are none remaining intact here (as far as we know).

ron · #53 19-06-07, 04:24

Hi Keith,
Thanks for the information, you say none remaining intact as far as we know,but are there any here in any condition? that we know of,
Regards,
Ron,

Keith Webb · #54 19-06-07, 04:34

According to my information the number of lighters tallies closely with the number of engines available, which means 36 barges with 3 spares.

ron · #55 19-06-07, 04:35

Hi Pedr,
Just got home,left here at 3 am with the hull and the Marmon parts,its all go here,
The plan to build a carrier is just a project that I have had in mind for a few years just to see if I can do it,I dont think that its going to be a big deal really, I have a huge new workshop being erected at the new place so with the right gear it will be much easeir,
Regards,
Ron,

ron · #56 19-06-07, 04:45

Hello Hanno,
I completely agree with you on the engine fitted to this rebuilt carrier, it was just any engine that was available to them at the time, and for what they were using this machine for in that steep country, it was ideal in so much that they could turn the machine much better than any carrier could ever do,whilst pushing logs or snigging them,
Maybe now that these remains have turned up who knows what is still out there?
Regards,
Ron,

Rob Dyba · #57 19-06-07, 05:04

Well if the original owner's story about the parts for the build coming from new Guinea are correct, perhaps at least some were sent there, most likely de-turreted gun tractors or supply carriers for the muddy conditions perhaps...????

Rob

Hanno Spoelstra · #58 19-06-07, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Have just dug up some more information about the fate of these tanks in Australian service...

Apparently we had 147 or so and their destinty was to be broken up during the war... the armour was cut up and used on landing craft to armour the helm, whilst the Hercules engines were used to power Phillipines lighters, with 4 engines going into each boat.

So the remaining mechanical parts were disposed of, probably mostly scrapped which makes this find all the more interesting.

Keith,

Seeing you draw the same conclusions, I assume you used the same sources as I did? Like
Marmon Herrington Tanks in Australia by Paul Handel, my Marmon-Herrington military vehicles site and the various threads on this forum. Or are there any new sources?

H.

Hanno Spoelstra · #59 19-06-07, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by robobmc
Well if the original owner's story about the parts for the build coming from new Guinea are correct, perhaps at least some were sent there, most likely de-turreted gun tractors or supply carriers for the muddy conditions perhaps...????

Rob,

Based on the facts we know, they were only used in Australia. I´d say they were confused with other tanks being used on New Guinea.

Hanno

Hanno Spoelstra · #60 23-07-07, 16:14

Here´s a rare photo of a partly disassembled MH Two Man Tank, showing the reduction drives. Not sure if they are the same as the ones Ron has rescued:

Source: overvalwagen.com