Ram Mark II manual

[Matthew Noonan]

Curious if anyone knows of any location that sells copies of the Ram instruction manuals?

I suppose I have been to spoiled with various sites offering reproduction prints or pdf versions for sale of many American manuals for reasonable costs, but for the life of me I can't find any such offering for the Ram.

Just original manuals up for sale at times in the past like on ebay and such. prices around the 250 to 400 range dollar range.

An example http://www.davidmasonbooks.com/oclis...st35-na018.php


Cheers

[Buster Reed]

Hi Matthew,

Do you happen to be the owner of a Ram tank by any chance, ifso send me a PM.

Kyle

[Matthew Noonan]

If only I had that kind of capital laying around. Then I might not mind paying 400 dollars for a manual.

Sadly I do not own a ram.

[Lauren Child]

Unfortunately you've hit on the problem. While US manuals are available quickly and easily, British and Commonwealth manuals aren't.

There are a few large collections of manuals around, and if you're looking for particular information then you can normally find someone to help.

With manuals like this being valuable, there's a very fine balancing act between releasing enough information to be helpful, and releasing copies more widely and thus devaluing the investment.

There's quite a good community though, and typically if you're working on a vehicle you'll find someone who'll run a copy off (or give up an original). They'll often run off a couple of extra copies so keep your ear to the ground.

Scanning takes quite a lot of time and effort though, and most collectors have got a backlog of scans on other manuals to run off for people.

I do know your pain though

It might help to explain why you want/need a copy.

[Matthew Noonan]

Would be nice to add to my collection in general.

Comparing figures the manual lists to things pulled out the Canadian microfilms or published books would be interesting as well.

I find no single source gives a clear picture, but the more sources you have the better idea you can get to what something actually was.

Take the R975 engine for example. most sources and even the maintenance manuals for it say one thing about the horsepower, while testing seems to show something different.

Edit: I see the manual sold already

[Lauren Child]

Yep, I tried to pick it up as well. I wonder who got this one (and the grizzly crew maintenance guide that was elsewhere on the booksellers site).

[rob love]

I figured it would disappear once you showed it to the masses on MLU. After all, it is a pretty rare book, and all they wanted for it was money, which is fairly common and you get more every couple weeks.

[Matthew Noonan]

Anyone with the manual could you tell us if they list any general specifications?

even if it's just weight, but if they included some armour measurements or dimensions that would be great.

Spec sheet lists the following for example on armour.

Turret front 76.2 (I suspect they mean the cover plate, and not the internal mantlet)
Turret sides 76.2 - 69.85
Turret rear 63.5
Turret top 38.1
Turret floor 50.8 - 38.1
(radio bulge)

Hull front upper 88.9
Hull front lower 50.8
Hull sides upper 76.2 - 50.8
Hull sides lower 38.1
Hull rear upper 31.75 or 38.1 (hard to tell if it's a 1" 1/4 or 1" 1/2)
Hull rear lower 38.1
Hull top 25.4
Hull top engine 12.7
Hull floor 25.4 - 12.7

Cupola 63.5

[Lauren Child]

I doubt it will list armour values - the service instruction books are more focussed on maintenance and repair.

[Lauren Child]

The data book does though - this may help.

and dimensions

[Matthew Noonan]

Thanks Lauren


Interesting... Values are all over the place depending on source. The top armour values from some sources are confusing, 76.2mm is extremely thick for a hull roof, unless they are counting the curving hull top in front of the turret, areas around the cupola etc and they are the higher values.

Examples

Hunnicutt

Hull
Upper front 76.2 - 50.8
Lower front 50.8
Sides 63.5 - 31.75
Rear 38.1
Top 25.4
Floor 25.4 - 12.7
cupola ?

Turret
Front 76.2
Sides 76.2 - 63.5
Rear 63.5
Top 25.4
Radio floor ?


AFV weapon profile #13

Hull
Front 44.45
Nose 38.1
Sides 63.5 - 31.75
Rear 38.1
Top 76.2 - 38.1
Floor 25.4
cupola ?

Turret
Front 88.9
Sides 63.5
Rear 38.1
Top 38.1
Radio floor ?


Bellona Military vehicle print no. 14

Hull
Glacis plate 50.8
Drivers plate 50.8
Nose upper 76.2 - 50.8
Nose lower 50.8
Sides upper 63.5
Sides lower 38.1
Rear 38.1
Top 38.1 - 25.4
Floor 25.4
cupola ?

Turret
Front 76.2
Sides 76.2 - 63.5
Rear ?
Top ?
Radio floor ?


Canada's pride

Turret
Front 76.2
Sides 76.2 - 63.5
Rear 63.5
Top 25.4
Radio floor?

Hull
Front upper 76.2
Front lower 50.8
Sides 63.5 - 31.75
Rear 38.1
Top 38.1 - 25.4
Floor 25.4 - 12.7
Cupola (no value given one paragraph mentions "thicker then M3, the M3 cupola was roughly 2 inches as far as I know")

Ram MK I for example from the archives and some weights (MK II has the same values other then weight)

http://i.imgur.com/WmO1AFp.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8jXfvEo.jpg

[Grant Bowker]

Images from the original listing of the book for sale as they will likely eventually disappear with the book sold...

Tank Cruiser Ram II Instruction Book April 1943.
4to., Stiff cloth with folding flaps and snaps, 143pp. Also included inside the front flap is the Canadian Army Training Pamphlet No. 12 Canadian Armoured Corps Crew Drill And Inspection Duties Ram I-II, 1942 and A folding "Gunnery And Ammunition Stowage Diagrams for Ram II Tank" plus a booklet "Ram II Crew Maintenance" and a "Lubrication Chart." Fine.

A scarce collection of original manuals, and diagrams for the Ram Tank, which was designed and built in Canada during the Second World War. The tank was used exclusively for training purposes and never used in combat due to standardization on the Sherman tank.

SOLD

[Grant Bowker]

... I hope the seller doesn't mind.

[45jim]

You are creating a problem by converting from Imperial to Metric. If you are trying to determine the correct thickness of armour plate you need to remember the different methods of production and the inherent tolerance related to each. Only then can you convert. RHA (rolled homogeneous armour) has a much tighter tolerance than cast sections or face hardened plate. I believe you must select the correct source (original manuals) and then examine the relevant specification on manufacture. A common modern material MIL-A-46100 has a nice standard and is widely available and will demonstrate the methodology used in armour production and grading. It shows the variability in dimension and composition that was acceptable. Is this for wargaming?

[Matthew Noonan]

Originally Posted by 45jim

You are creating a problem by converting from Imperial to Metric. If you are trying to determine the correct thickness of armour plate you need to remember the different methods of production and the inherent tolerance related to each. Only then can you convert. RHA (rolled homogeneous armour) has a much tighter tolerance than cast sections or face hardened plate. I believe you must select the correct source (original manuals) and then examine the relevant specification on manufacture. A common modern material MIL-A-46100 has a nice standard and is widely available and will demonstrate the methodology used in armour production and grading. It shows the variability in dimension and composition that was acceptable. Is this for wargaming?

Tolerance thickness varied by date or nation, no idea what Canada was using. 0-5% is a good rule of thumb. With cast in the states I have seen spec sheets that will call for say 2 inches total thickness on a section, but then they will sate "equivalent to RHA plate" so they wanted cast armour that would act the same as if it was 2 inches of RHA, so slightly more then 2 inches in terms of cast armour total.

The spec sheet seems to be the most reliable unless someone in the future finds late manufacturers drawing plans, but was the tank constructed using an armour basis curve? it does not say, so again more confusion.

And if it is using a armour basis curve, what nations? the US? British? or did Canada have it's own? They evolved over time as well.

Example of a US curve from 1943.

http://i.imgur.com/IPU5D3F.jpg

Brig. Worthington had this to say in the summer of 1941 after talking to the British.

On cast armour

"In discussing plate thickness the opinion given was that working on a basic thickness for upright surfaces and then thinning down on the slopes was definitely bad practice. It was felt the sloping surfaces of a tank will be very often presented to normal impact and that therefore to depend on thin plates due to slope is asking for trouble. Whereas in the case of upright sides the resistance to normal impact is known at any angle beyond normal impact, the resisting power of the plate will simply be increased."

"I discussed the question of streamlining the top cast hull as on the Canadian M3 Cruiser. Opinions rendered indicate that so long as the basic thickness was maintained up to the gentler slopes, it could be thinned down with immunity where the surface is more horizontal. This point should be looked into"

[Marc van Aalderen]

Hello,

I can recommend this company for their fine reproduction manuals. Unfortunately no Ram manual at this time but you can email and ask if they have one?

http://www.afvhandbooks.com/index.html

Cheers,

[Matthew Noonan]

Thanks for the suggestion Marc.

I see the CWM (Canadian war museum) library does contain the earlier Ram I and II manual from 1942, but not the 1943 version for the II.

I think I saw that they have the parts list book as well.

They also have the full? report on the firing tests done on a Ram II turret front plate.

I have a short write up on it from the archives, but nothing detailed. so the full report, one would hope would list armour values for locations.

http://i.imgur.com/QRfuH1h.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XiTXgjQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/y8T1vFZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6PK6YUB.jpg

I'll see if they can make scanned copies and what they charge per page, If they get back to me I'll let everyone know.

(US national archives for example charge .80 cents a page for documents)

[Lauren Child]

Check before you pay for a copy.

The report may well gave useful info, but the service instruction books are large and don't usually cover the information you're after. You could pay a lot and not get what you're after. Same with the parts lists.

I've seen armour values on separate diagrams but I doubt these were provided into the field for obvious reasons, so they're not common.

Have you tried asking the archives folk at the tank museum in Bovington, UK?

[45jim]

Tolerance in cross section is not a function of location of manufacture but one of process control. Arbitrarily selection of a tolerance of 0-5% and calling it a "rule of thumb" isn't even rational as tolerance changes as surface area increases. Current thickness tolerances are about 2.5% for off the shelf rolled armour (up to 60" width) and most vehicle companies require tolerances closer to 1% (e.g. CMS 21). The standards exist for a reason, ballistic performance can be compromised by stacking tolerance in the wrong direction. Cast standards are also good, examine a cast iron engine block for example.

I wonder if you have misunderstood the notations on the cast US armour spec you elude to. Anyone who manufactures anything to a drawing makes it to the drawing (as close as possible within the confines of the process) so if it says 2" on the drawing then the final product will be 2". If there is a notation on the drawing that states "equivalent to 2" RHA" it most likely relates to the ballistic standard that that section must achieve as RHA is the standard by which all other metallic armours are compared.

The basis curve you attached has nothing to do with armour protection, it is a graphical representation of a simple mathematical calculation of cross section at various angles of attack. This is useful in calculating the reduction of weight achievable by using thinner sloped armour. You can tell this by the nice slope, penetration performance does not generate such a nice predictable curve. It quickly changes to ricochet at high angles of attack. If you were using this curve to predict armour performance you have a problem because as you approach 90 deg the thickness becomes the height of the armour sample.

Worthington knew what he was talking about regarding armour and that using NATO angles (normal angle to zero) is nice but it fails to take into account potential engagement angles in combat.

[Lauren Child]

Originally Posted by 45jim

Anyone who manufactures anything to a drawing makes it to the drawing (as close as possible within the confines of the process) so if it says 2" on the drawing then the final product will be 2".

Ah, that'll be MIL-TF-D41 compliance.

[Matthew Noonan]

Originally Posted by 45jim

Tolerance in cross section is not a function of location of manufacture but one of process control. Arbitrarily selection of a tolerance of 0-5% and calling it a "rule of thumb" isn't even rational as tolerance changes as surface area increases. Current thickness tolerances are about 2.5% for off the shelf rolled armour (up to 60" width) and most vehicle companies require tolerances closer to 1% (e.g. CMS 21). The standards exist for a reason, ballistic performance can be compromised by stacking tolerance in the wrong direction. Cast standards are also good, examine a cast iron engine block for example.

I wonder if you have misunderstood the notations on the cast US armour spec you elude to. Anyone who manufactures anything to a drawing makes it to the drawing (as close as possible within the confines of the process) so if it says 2" on the drawing then the final product will be 2". If there is a notation on the drawing that states "equivalent to 2" RHA" it most likely relates to the ballistic standard that that section must achieve as RHA is the standard by which all other metallic armours are compared.

The basis curve you attached has nothing to do with armour protection, it is a graphical representation of a simple mathematical calculation of cross section at various angles of attack. This is useful in calculating the reduction of weight achievable by using thinner sloped armour. You can tell this by the nice slope, penetration performance does not generate such a nice predictable curve. It quickly changes to ricochet at high angles of attack. If you were using this curve to predict armour performance you have a problem because as you approach 90 deg the thickness becomes the height of the armour sample.

Worthington knew what he was talking about regarding armour and that using NATO angles (normal angle to zero) is nice but it fails to take into account potential engagement angles in combat.

Many spec sheets from the period will list "Armour basis" you use the basis curve to find out actual, or in reverse if you know the angle of the plate and the actual thickness you could find out what it's basis would be.

The T14 assault tank for example, early spec sheets call for a (125-127 mm) frontal armour basis. The armour basis curve shows us how to find actual from that, which ends up being 50mm @ 60 deg. The actual front plate on the T14 in construction was 50mm at 60 deg. It's upper hull sides called for a 62.5 mm basis, which we know are sloped at 30 deg. Actual thickness was 50 mm. 50 mm @ 30 deg in the armour basis curve is 62.5 mm ( have seen 125 listed and 127 as basis, probably down to whoever was converting the value at the time either as 50 mm or 2 inches)

M6 heavy tank is another example of a vehicle who's exact specs are hard to find, but we do have the called for armour basis which was 127 mm frontal. So the vertical and near vertical surfaces would have to be physically at or near 127 mm, and the upper hull which was sloped at 30 deg would have to be around 101 mm to meet the called for spec.

There's a British AFV situation report update where they state the front of the Hull is 101.6 mm "Actual" as they don't list upper or lower front as location I assume it's for the majorty of the upper hull.

The Americans applied the basis curve to German vehicles as well at times. They knew the actual values, and they wanted to see the basis under their own curve.

http://i.imgur.com/9XPTyC6.jpg


The War Museum replied back to me, they are having trouble locating the files but are going to continue to look, prices are quite decent $6 for the first 20 pages, .30 cents per page after.

The National archives of Australia have some possibly interesting reports as well on the mounting of the 6 pdr in the Ram turret, along with drawings. Could be a possible source with dimension drawings at least for the mantlet and mabye the turret.

[Matthew Noonan]

Files came today, some lovely photos.

No actual thickness values are given for the turret front in the test other then the depth of the impressions left by the rounds that struck. Which is still useful as it can tell us some information.

Deepest indentation into the plate was 69.85 mm

The only area that they do give an outright value to is the horseshoe around the gun, which was 44.45 mm as a round struck that penetrated and then was stopped by the mantlet proper.


http://i.imgur.com/wTkNbVP.png

http://i.imgur.com/y9ST8zU.png

[Matthew Noonan]

Australian archives delivered the item I requested today.

Once you pay for something and they scan it, they add it to the website so anyone is free to view them in the future.

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Searc...aspx?B=1664990

[Matthew Noonan]

Originally Posted by Matthew Noonan

Australian archives delivered the item I requested today.

Once you pay for something and they scan it, they add it to the website so anyone is free to view them in the future.

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Searc...aspx?B=1664990

Paid to have the other files checked with the hope they had more, but it's basically the same as the other.

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Searc...aspx?B=4938371

The CWM's copy of the 1942 manual has gone missing unfortunately. But the tank restorer had a copy of the 1943 one which they were able to copy.

Nothing on the Armour values in it as others had said. The general description included "The armour of the tank consists both of armour steel plate and cast armour steel. The lower hull is of armour steel plate riveted to suitable structural steel members. The top hull and turret are entirely of cast armour steel of varying thickness."

Except for one blurb in the turret section which seems to contradict any other source for thickness.

"The turret is a one-piece casting of two-inch armour"

Manual Lists the Gun as being able to elevate to +20 and depress to -7.5

In Canada's pride, Roger Lucy talks about the pilot Ram II tested in November 1941 on page 39 and 40 and some of the issues they had with it such as location of elevation gear, turret basket problems and such. He states they had concerns with the limited gun depression of the main gun being -10 to the front and -7.5 to sides and rear. Fixing it would have required redesign of both turret and rear deck. Joint committee on tank development agreed on December 11 1941 that -10 was acceptable.

Then on page 66 he lists the gun as being able to do +20 and -7.5.


I know the turret front plate changed at a later date and the inner mantlet had some tweaks at various times as well, but was the change so large that they lost 2.5 degrees of depression to the front from the pilot?

The Ram I with the 2 pdr is another ? on gun depression, I am guessing it was roughly in line with say what the valentine could do -15. Hunnicutt lists -10 but I believe this is incorrect. There are documents listing depression over the engine deck being limited to -12 or so after fitting intake protection plates for example.


The manual has some lovely diagrams and semi decent pictures of the tank.

I edited one and removed all the arrows crisscrossing it pointing out components to try and make a cleaner image for fun.


i.imgur.com/h6bFQCh.png

[Lynn Eades]

Mathew, as this is such an " in depth " discussion, have you considered the difference between the legally adopted British inch and the inch adopted by the USA.?
The 1922 comparison gave the British inch as being slightly less than 25.4mm and the U.S inch as being slightly more than 25.4mm.
Technically the U.S.is metricated in that its measurements are conversions of the metric SI system.


Apparently there has been between 5 and 8 different inches throughout the history of our planet.

And yes! I am just sh_ _ stirring.

The difference between the two above inches is 1 ten thousanth of an inch over 27 inches. (zip!)

[Matthew Noonan]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Mathew, as this is such an " in depth " discussion, have you considered the difference between the legally adopted British inch and the inch adopted by the USA.?
The 1922 comparison gave the British inch as being slightly less than 25.4mm and the U.S inch as being slightly more than 25.4mm.
Technically the U.S.is metricated in that its measurements are conversions of the metric SI system.


Apparently there has been between 5 and 8 different inches throughout the history of our planet.

And yes! I am just sh_ _ stirring.

The difference between the two above inches is 1 ten thousanth of an inch over 27 inches. (zip!)

They do like to switch between imperial and metric at random it seems at times in archive material.

Weights are another annoying area. Is this imperial tons? US short tons? or metric. It's nice when they toss in a cwt in the figure so you know exactly what it is at times.