Jump to content

A15 Crusader missing WD Serial blocks


KRK4m

Recommended Posts

In most sources I've seen the WD serial blocks for the A15 Crusader are listed as follows:

  • T3646
  • T15545-T15745 (T15637 excepted)
  • T16558-T16657 (T16638 excepted)
  • T43652-T44679
  • T44871-T45213
  • T46162-T46261
  • T123633-T127269

But in the 1/48 Hasegawa kit you can find T15779 and T44723 that don't fit into above scheme. Are they fake or the list needs further completion?

Cheers

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On balance it seems more likely that Hasegawa have goofed than multiple research is collectively wrong. I presume you mean their 1/72 kit?

 

It may be that they had photo evidence not available to anyone else, but this seems unlikely.  That kit is very many years old (40-ish) and one imagines any evidence they used would have come to light by now.

 

More likely they just added some numbers to one they saw in a photo and went out of range. Or copied an incorrectly marked museum tank: there are about 2 dozen surviving Crusader variants and we know that preserved vehicle markings aren't always accurate. We knew a lot less about things like serial number ranges 40 years ago when that decal sheet was created. Short of direct archive research it was books.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the Crusader I've started building is the new tool IBG one, but both WD serials I listed above are repeated by IBG after the 2007 Tamiya (not Hasegawa, my error) 1/48 kit https://www.scalemates.com/kits/tamiya-32541-crusader-mki-ii--102634

The 15779 and 44723 are also repeated by the Chinese 1/72 S-Model (which also includes 44869), while Italeri 1/35 kit includes 43617.

Thus my suspicions go the other way - perhaps it's the list from the book that is seriously incomplete, although the total number of 5,408 (including all Mk.I-IIIs, OPs, AAs and gun tractors) already exceeds the 5,300 estimate given by most "secondary" sources.

As the aviation historian (and modeller) for 40+ years I can't believe that - opposite to the RAF and USAAF serial index - there are no complete WD listings available online.

Cheers

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One possible reason for the total number difference is double-counting of conversions. The AA tanks were all conversions for example, but their number doesn't equate to the difference.

 

There is a well-respected list in circulation for B vehicles, the 'Chilwell List' - named after the location of the Army registration office. But there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for A vehicles. Some information is certainly out there but it does seem to be patchy and not collated to a single source.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/06/2020 at 04:28, Das Abteilung said:

One possible reason for the total number difference is double-counting of conversions. The AA tanks were all conversions for example, but their number doesn't equate to the difference.

 

There is a well-respected list in circulation for B vehicles, the 'Chilwell List' - named after the location of the Army registration office. But there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for A vehicles. Some information is certainly out there but it does seem to be patchy and not collated to a single source.

I have a copy of a list, ostensibly complete, for A vehicles, which I found in the archives at the old Museum of Army Transport, in Beverley, and had photocopied... It contains contract numbers, serials allocated, and brief mention of whether the contracts were completed. I'll see if I can dig it out. It's a long time since I saw it - must be somewhere in my papers. I did start, on a visit to Bovington's library once, working my way through the contract cards and comparing the two. Far too big a job to really get anywhere, but the records I looked at appeared to tally between the two - more or less - though the contract cards were a complete mess of crossings-out, amendments, replacements and all sorts.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I inherited a card index like that for naval spare parts back in the mid-80's.  Some hadn't been touched since WW2!  I had no choice but to transcribe the data on active items over months to a new IT system.  In the days when mainframes occupied large buildings and monitors were converted black and white TVs with no local processing .............................

 

It would be extremely useful if this information for A and B vehicles could be published in one place.  Or just published.  I would love a scanned copy, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

 

Museum of Army Transport closed many years ago with no hope of being reconstituted.  IMHO a shameful act of historical vandalism for the sake of MOD, DCMS or HLF covering the cost of roof repairs.  The same can be said for the many-years-closed RA museum, plans for a new one at West Lavington seemingly coming to naught.  The registarion office at Chilwell closed some years back when all new registration issues were transferred onto JAMES.  Tracking their records has thus become more difficult: one hopes they went to Kew.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Well it isn’t where I thought it was, so it must be where I thought it wasn’t - which could be almost anywhere. 
 

Edit: Found it! It was where it wasn’t supposed to be. 

Edited by PhilHendry
Adding to the post.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Working... The list above is incomplete, according to this copy of the ‘A List’. It’s hard work because it’s a photocopy (from about thirty years ago) of a document which had been typed on a very worn typewriter. I’ll try, later, to produce a complete list, but for now, the numbers T15779 and T44723 can be said to fall within number sets allocated to Crusader production... Though from my work trying to tie ‘A List’ entries to contact cards, it’s clear that number allocations happened before production, and the A List doesn’t tell you if the actual vehicles themselves were ever produced. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is all the Crusader serials I've been able to find in the A List, with the firm the serials were allocated to (presumably, in the contract cards at Bovington there should be a corresponding contract):

 

T3646 Nuffield M+A Crusader A15E1 Cruiser VI HMC517

T15546-15645 Nuffield M+A Crusader I

T15646-15745 Foden Crusader I

T15746-15845 illegible Crusader I II

T15846-15945 Nuffield M+A Crusader

T43652-43751 Nuffield M+A Crusader II

T43752-43991 Nuffield M+A Crusader II

T43992-44231 Rushton-Bucyrus Crusader II

T44232-44401 MG Car Crusader II

T44402-44521 Jonn Lys??ht Crusader II

T44522-44715 Milner’s Safe Crusader II

T44716-44840 Foden Crusader II

T44841-44965 Wests Gas Crusader II

T44966-45213 Nuffield M+A Crusader II

T46162-46211 Wests Gas Crusader I II

T46212-46261 Foden Crusader II

T123633-123987 Wests Gas Crusader III

T123988-124477 Rushton-Bucyrus Crusader III

T124478-124787 MG Car Crusader II

T124788-125117 John Lys?ght Crusader II

T125118-125473 Milner’s Safe Crusader III

T125474-125983 MIB Completion Crusader III

T125984-126269 Nuffield M+A Crusader III

T126270-126749 Foden Crusader III

T126750-127269 Nuffield M+A Crusader III

 

I hope it’s useful!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I believe it is agreed that there is no way of knowing if an entire allocated number block was used other than comparing the number range to the actual production numbers and assuming that the numbering started at the beginning and was contiguous.

 

Probably even more uncertain with US-sourced vehicles. For the cash-purchase Grants numbers were given by the Tank Purchasing Commission directly to the manufacturers. After Lend-Lease the numbers were allocated by Commission staff at Ordnance Tank Depots.

 

Back to the subject, there are some interesting unexpected manufacturer's names on that Crusader list. Foden and Milners, for example. Never heard of Wests Gas before. However, Grace's Guide lists Wests Gas Improvement Co Ltd. Their Albion Ironworks in Manchester made general machinery and structural steelwork, so that seems a likely location.

 

I believe the name with missing character is John Lysaght, a Bristol-based iron and steel company with operations in Scunthorpe, Newport and Wolverhampton. But by WW2 was part of the GKN operation, having been bought by them in 1920.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crusader II T.44723 was captured by DAK in 1942.  The two images I have show it to have what appears to be a white roof cross which was the 8th Army air I.D. sign from March to June 1942.  It is in overall Light Stone.   Another image shows it wrecked with a outline type german cross marking on the trackguards.   I don't have an image of T.T15579 although that is a Mk.II according to my list.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mike Starmer said:

Crusader II T.44723 was captured by DAK in 1942.  The two images I have show it to have what appears to be a white roof cross which was the 8th Army air I.D. sign from March to June 1942.  It is in overall Light Stone.   Another image shows it wrecked with a outline type german cross marking on the trackguards.   I don't have an image of T.T15579 although that is a Mk.II according to my list.

Bear in mind that even from a photo it’s hard to tell the difference between Mk.I and MkII - you really have to be able to see the turret front - the prominence of the surround to the vision port and/or the chamfer on the lower diagonal edge of the front armour. So it can be difficult. What evidence is there that T15579 is a MkII?

Edited by PhilHendry
Correcting
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry my error, reading into the WD list too much.  That lists both Mk.I & IIs.  T.15572 is definitely a Mk.I.  so I must presume T.15579 is too.  Checking just now, one image shows T.15572 with heavy right front and trackguard damage as captured.  The other image shows it in Germany in substantially better condition.  I am wondering if the German picture has been doctored to show an undamaged tank. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...