Museums Victoria photo archive

Mike Kelly · #1 17-01-23, 01:30

Mike Kelly · #2 17-01-23, 11:33

Mr. Baker inspecting his Tanks

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...er%20Motors%22

Australian built Cruiser tanks sold as scrap in 1946. Just a couple of years before 1946, all of the effort, research and manufacturing cost and it's thrown away as junk in such a short time. Madness. Were these tanks deemed to be obsolete in such a short time ? The buyer was selling crated Cadillac engines as disposals parts - these were probably spare Cruiser tank engines.

Jakko Westerbeke · #3 18-01-23, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

Australian built Cruiser tanks sold as scrap in 1946. Just a couple of years before 1946, all of the effort, research and manufacturing cost and it's thrown away as junk in such a short time. Madness. Were these tanks deemed to be obsolete in such a short time ?

Yes. The Sentinel was mostly inferior to tanks like the Sherman, and even the Grant and Lee in some ways. At the same time, any country that wanted tanks in 1946 could pretty much get as many Shermans as they liked, thereby also benefitting from the large amounts of spare parts available for them, unlike for the Sentinel. So, Australia had no need of Sentinels itself and no countries to sell them to either. Might as well just about give them away to anyone who thinks they have a use for them.

Mike Kelly · #4 18-01-23, 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakko Westerbeke

Yes. The Sentinel was mostly inferior to tanks like the Sherman, and even the Grant and Lee in some ways. At the same time, any country that wanted tanks in 1946 could pretty much get as many Shermans as they liked, thereby also benefitting from the large amounts of spare parts available for them, unlike for the Sentinel. So, Australia had no need of Sentinels itself and no countries to sell them to either. Might as well just about give them away to anyone who thinks they have a use for them.

You would think the Govt. could have put the Cruisers in storage or used them for training rather than scrapping them so quickly. The drawings for the manufacture of spare parts would have been available . I guess spares for the Cadillac engines would have been an issue ? Another thing is the small number that were built was probably why they decided to declare the type as surplus to needs. The Grant/Lee was thought of as being obsolete in some circles but they kept the diesel powered version in service until the mid 1950s I think.

Mike Cecil · #5 18-01-23, 18:03

The 'as new' Cadillacs must have been those taken out of the tanks the Baker Motors purchased. They also advertised engines at 100 pounds each. Since they purchased over 30 AC1 tanks, that's more than 90 engines to sell. Crating the engines for interim storage and sale makes sense.

The new, unused Cadillacs were sold by the CDC for the flat rate of 150 pounds each.

Not one AC1 tank was ever completed to the staqe of being a reliable, combat-ready tank.

My take on the story of the development and demise of the Aust Cruiser tank is in the book design phase with Trackpad Publishing at the moment. Should be available in the next couple of months.

Mike

Mike Kelly · #6 19-01-23, 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

The 'as new' Cadillacs must have been those taken out of the tanks the Baker Motors purchased. They also advertised engines at 100 pounds each. Since they purchased over 30 AC1 tanks, that's more than 90 engines to sell. Crating the engines for interim storage and sale makes sense.

The new, unused Cadillacs were sold by the CDC for the flat rate of 150 pounds each.

Not one AC1 tank was ever completed to the staqe of being a reliable, combat-ready tank.

My take on the story of the development and demise of the Aust Cruiser tank is in the book design phase with Trackpad Publishing at the moment. Should be available in the next couple of months.

Mike

Great , should be a good read !

I was mislead by this film of the AC1 tanks actually driving around. The army or somebody must have cobbled a few AC1 tanks into running condition for the Dept. of Information movie cameras and the visiting 'dignitaries' including Bob Menzies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzJ8mflCXQU

Jakko Westerbeke · #7 19-01-23, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

You would think the Govt. could have put the Cruisers in storage or used them for training rather than scrapping them so quickly.

I suspect they felt that storing tanks costs even more money, while selling them for scrap metal at least brings back some of the investments. Never underestimate beancounters …

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

The drawings for the manufacture of spare parts would have been available

But who would want to tool up to make those parts if there are warehouses full of Sherman spares in the USA and elsewhere?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Trove photo archive	Mike Kelly	WW2 Military History & Equipment	6	12-08-23 14:10
SLQ photo archive	Mike Kelly	WW2 Military History & Equipment	21	01-08-23 06:49
Library of Congress photo archive	Mike Kelly	WW2 Military History & Equipment	4	13-01-23 13:51
N.T. library photo archive	Mike Kelly	WW2 Military History & Equipment	8	31-12-22 09:52
Alexander Turnbull photo archive	Mike Kelly	WW2 Military History & Equipment	3	29-12-22 11:49