Jump to content

Tamiya 'Achilles' Wireless aerials


dogload

Recommended Posts

Hi - this is possibly a stupid query. I'm nearing the end (finally!) of my Tamiya 1/35 M10 Achilles build, having decided to go with the kit tracks and model it as 93rd AT Regt vehicle in Italy, 1944 (as per kit decals). The thing that's got me puzzled this time is the placement of the wireless antenna on the glacis. Have Tamiya got it wrong? Or is this another case of 'it varies from vehicle to vehicle'?

 

Photos show that there is a large aerial mounting on the hull side, and a whip aerial on the front glacis. The kit has the side-mounted aerial, but I'm confused by the fittings on the glacis, which can be seen in this photo (of a build by @Birdman of this parish) 

spacer.png

 

There's an aerial pot between the front-left lifting hook and headlamp brush guard, and what looks like a blanked-off fitting higher up. Period photos seem to have the front aerial higher up the glacis - as on this restored one:

spacer.png

 

I did come across the following photo of a British M10 which has the same fittings as the Tamiya Achilles:

spacer.png

 

I'm in no mind to take a scalpel to my almost-finished model, but I am very curious as to what was going on there...  I'm sure someone round here must have a 'definitive' answer! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American built M10 had provision for just one aerial mounting, and that was the location on the hull side.    If the glacis aerial mount was a modification undertaken after delivery to units, that could explain the slightly different locations in the photos?

 

m73tkye8m5t71.jpg

 

f49a602cb7b16992592a0130fbbf77ab.gif

 

These appear to be the standard pairing of aerials.  The forward is set A composed of a singe  four foot section, while on the side is the B set at 20 inches.   They are rods so would not bend if the the gun barrel would swing into them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M10 was something of a comms problem for us Brits.  Although it was an SP gun manned by Gunners we would ideally still have wanted the radio in the turret in line with our turreted AFV practice.  But that was simply not feasible with the M10 so we kept the radio in the hull.  US AFV Radios used a single antenna whereas our No19 set used 2.  So 2 additional antenna base mountings were added on the glacis.  But antenna separation meant still using the original hull side antenna location.  Neither was ideal as they impeded right traverse of the gun and British antenna bases were not sprung like the US version.

 

However, the Gunners made more use of the No 22 radio later in the war because of its longer range - potentially twice that of the No19 - and greater flexibility.  The antenna base setup here seems to match that for the No22 in this diagram, ignoring the ground spikes.

spacer.png

 

There was a Canadian-made antenna base extension tube intended for the No19 but I can't see why it would not have worked with the No22's bases.  But the extended base has me stumped, as an ex-Signaller.  I can only assume that it is to raise the antenna above the mass of the vehicle for better transmission/reception.  But it definitely restricts traverse to the right.  What is missing on the model and the real photo is the actual antenna itself.  The blob at the top of the mast is just the antenna base No11, into which the antenna elements would be fitted.

 

I believe the No22 B set used the same 2 foot antenna as the No19 as seen in the photo on the galcis base.  The A set used antennas starting at 12 feet and going up to 34 feet (12, 16, 22, 28, 34).  Too tall to be mounted when mobile and definitely needing to be guyed above 12 feet.

 

Antenna extension tube, No11 Antenna Base (on the mast) and Insulator, W/T B (hull front).  However the hull front base here looks like the standard No19 B set base, which would work just as well and was designed for AFV fitting (below).

spacer.png  spacer.png  spacer.png

 

No19 B set base, late war type with screw clamp.

spacer.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and informative stuff, as I expected. Thank you chaps!

So no surprise really - the usual "yes - and no" conclusion when it comes to anything Sherman-related then? :)

Next step, try to fit an aerial to the nanoscopic area on top of the glacis pot. 😧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside the antenna question there are some other interesting points in the photos posted.  Most notably, in @JackG's lower photo from IWM the full set of applique armour is fitted!  I'm not sure that I've ever seen this.  The common wisdom is that it was never done, which is why the mounting bosses were eliminated from later M10 production. It was certainly very rare and among all the preserved M10 and M36 only 1 has any fitted.   All the other photos show M10s with bosses on the glacis but not on the hull sides, a common (most common?) combination.  The side armour plates were 14mm, giving 33mm when fitted.  Front plate may have been thicker.  The turret side pieces are extended in height above the level  of the turret top edge.

 

Notice also in that photo how one of the spare link holders has been re-purposed to carry spare end connectors.  I venture to suggest that the bent antenna mast here was caused by the counterweight when traversing gun left, perhaps showing the vulnerability of the idea.

 

In Jack's top photo the 17pdr muzzle brake is fitted at a jaunty angle with the vent holes almost vertical rather than horizontal.  That was going to kick up a lot of dust in the dry.

 

In @dogload's photo 2 tubes have been welded to the glacis to hold 2 spare wheels. 

 

The marks at the muzzle end of the barrel in that photo suggest that vehicle is a 17pdr Achilles with the muzzle brake and counterweight removed.  Why is a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kingsman That one with the applique armour looks like an earlier, pre-duckbill counterweights version too. Hence the bosses I suppose. I wonder if it arrived in British hands complete with extra armour? And of course, it begs the eternal question: OD or SCC15? ;)

 

Actually, the one with the mysteriously missing muzzle brake looks to be non-duckbill as well, which is why I thought it might be a regular M10. I've had a quick look and it may be a 62nd RA M10, part of 1 Corps.

If it is a 17pdr, perhaps they removed the muzzle brake as a disguise, following the shoot-out at Buron. Pure conjecture! lol

 

Edit: I've come across this post on 'another forum'!
 

Edited by dogload
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dogload said:

which is why I thought it might be a regular M10.

I would think, looking at how shiny the end of the barrel is, that the 17pdr's muzzle brake has been removed. I've got an AFV Club kit of the British Wolverine, and the barrel doesn't look like that.

 

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dogload I think the vehicle sans muzzle brake might belong to 52nd (6th London) Anti-Tank Regiment RA.  There appears to be a 1 Corps arrowhead marking on the left glacis and the AOS 2 indicates a Corps AT Regt.  52nd was the Corps AT Regt for 1 Corps.

 

It does seem to possibly have a thread protector fitted, or possibly it is the securing collar for the missing muzzle brake.  The photo isn't clear enough but there is clearly a little step a few inches short of the muzzle.  From what you can see of the mantlet between the crew this is an Achilles and not an M10.

 

As for the vehicle with the applique armour, the armour panels are likely to have been supplied pre-painted in OD.  Accepting that the vehicle is muddy they are not tonally different from the rest of the vehicle.  It has in the past been suggested that Achilles conversions were only patch-painted in SCC15 as the only major external change was the mantlet.  Achilles conversions were running well behind and there was rush on.  Only 120-odd were ready for D Day from the 1,000 envisaged but another 700 or so were converted by the end of 1944 with conversion up to 5 a day at its height.  So patch-painting would make some sense vs full repainting.  But in theory the conversion would tick the box for a full repaint.  Everything here is tonally the same, mud notwithstanding.  The Churchill VII behind will be SCC15 and is notably darker, although less muddy.  Whichever colour it was, Birdman's model is completely the wrong colour.  Far too bright a green.  OD was browner, SCC15 was darker.

 

The officer standing in front of that vehicle is Maj Gen Colin Barber, commanding 15th (Scottish) Inf Div and the photo is somewhere near Koch in Germany on 20 Feb 45.  Which means that the Achilles probably belongs to 102 (Northumberland Hussars) Anti-Tank Regiment RA (TA).  They were the organic AT unit for the Division at the time.

 

BTW, the 2 outer US jerrycans on the glacis of that vehicle, and presumably the middle one too, are the water type with the different wider filler cap.

Edited by Kingsman
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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...