MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 2/22/2018 1:57:00 AM
 (1946-1999) Other 20th Century Battles    
AuthorMessage
BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 2:08:23 AM
 This photo is stated to be of a captured "Commonwealth" tank in the Korean War. Anyone know more about it? I thought the Commonwealth forces fought with Centurions there and this looks to be a Cromwell?



Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 7:38:09 AM
The Canadians used M4 Sherman tanks initially.

I'm not a tank expert but isn't this a Sherman with a 76mm gun? These are Canadians.





Canada did begin to replace the Sherman with Centurion Mark 3 1952 and 1953.

DND had plans to "Americanize" its weaponry but there were problems with the Patton tank. (I can't remember what it was)

The first 21 Centurions arrived in 1952 but they were shipped to the Royal Canadian Dragoons in Germany.

According to www.canadiansoldiers.com, none of the 274 Centurions on order made it to the Korean conflict.

So it seems that for the Canadian contingent of British Commonwealth Forces Korea, the M4 Sherman was the main battle tank.



Bill, I tried to do some light research on captured Cromwells in Korea and it seems that the North Koreans did capture some Cromwell tanks at the "Battle of Happy Valley".

The article, which is short alludes to a situation in which a British Centurion actually destroyed a Cromwell operated by the Chinese.

And this "blogspot", whatever that is says that the British employed Churchill, Cromwell and Centurions in Korea.

[Read More]

The writer poses an interesting question however.

He asks whether it is possible that the USSR gave Cromwell tanks to the Chinese?

Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 9:43:04 AM
George,

 I had exactly the same question re: USSR. Maybe a lend-lease tank given by the USSR to the PRC? Kind of a bitter pill to reflect upon.

 Thank you for the comments. In regards to your question about the tank photo, yes, that is Sherman tank variant of some kind with a 76-mm gun. That makes sense as, IIRC, the Canadians in NW Europe employed quite a few of the Shermans with 76-mm gun.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 10:17:32 AM
Bill, I am reasonably sure that the Canadians returned most of their tanks to the British after the war rather than bring them all home. A few came home for training purposes.

Did the US produce Sherman tanks with a 76 mm gun mounted?

The reason that I ask is that in 1946, Canada purchased surplus Shermans from the US. These were M4A2(76)W models. (Easy 8 ????)

So I believe that the Shermans used by Canada in Korea would have come from that US surplus supply.


Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 10:20:17 AM
George,

 Scratch my comments about the PRC. I read your link in full. Quite a story.


Quote:
Before The Third Battle of Seoul, UN forces retreated from Seoul in the threat of CCA forces using human sea wave tactics. To earn some times to safely fall back, the U.N. urgently dispatched British's Ulster infantry battalion to near 'Go-yang' and 'Nam-yang' provinces, north of Seoul. Ulster infantry battalion included British Royal Hussar Tank Battalion's 14 of Mk VIII Cromwell tanks.

For four days, British troops of Ulster battalion successfully resisted and earned time for the U.N. troops and Seoul civilians to retreat from Seoul. The day before January 14, 1951, Ulster battalion was ordered to retreat from the defense line to South and regroup with UN troops. However, CCA noticed the withdrawing plan and ambushed Ulster's battalion. 157 British soldiers were killed and 20 soldiers were captured. Moreover, all 14 Cromwell tanks were also captured by CCA.


Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 642

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 11:24:57 AM
George, are those empty shells in front of "Cheetah" bearing markers?

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 12:53:24 PM

Quote:
George, are those empty shells in front of "Cheetah" bearing markers?
--OpanaPointer


You've got me. Good catch though.

The only other use that I have read about for spent shell casings was to create a rudimentary heating system that the soldiers called a "drip system".

Gas in a jerry can placed well outside a bunker fed gas through a tube to a stove made partly of a spent casing. They punched holes in the casing and rigged up some kind of stove to provide heat. I think that the casings may have been part of a smoke stack.



Other than that, I do not know why the casings were in front of the tank.



Cheers,

George


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 1:15:11 PM

Quote:
George,

 Scratch my comments about the PRC. I read your link in full. Quite a story.


Quote:
Before The Third Battle of Seoul, UN forces retreated from Seoul in the threat of CCA forces using human sea wave tactics. To earn some times to safely fall back, the U.N. urgently dispatched British's Ulster infantry battalion to near 'Go-yang' and 'Nam-yang' provinces, north of Seoul. Ulster infantry battalion included British Royal Hussar Tank Battalion's 14 of Mk VIII Cromwell tanks.

For four days, British troops of Ulster battalion successfully resisted and earned time for the U.N. troops and Seoul civilians to retreat from Seoul. The day before January 14, 1951, Ulster battalion was ordered to retreat from the defense line to South and regroup with UN troops. However, CCA noticed the withdrawing plan and ambushed Ulster's battalion. 157 British soldiers were killed and 20 soldiers were captured. Moreover, all 14 Cromwell tanks were also captured by CCA.


Cheers,

BW
--BWilson


Thanks for this Bill.

The description may be what the Ulstermen called the Battle of Happy Valley.

[Read More]


After the counter attack to retake Seoul, the British recovered a few of the Cromwells, lost at "Happy Valley"

Photo too big. I posted in a READMORE

[Read More]

This one didn't fare as well.





In my wanderings, I found reference to British Churchill tanks fitted as flame throwers, so Crocodiles then. I do not know where or when they were employed in Korea.

Also there was reference to a Comet tank. Is that a derivation of the Cromwell?


One other photo shows the recapture of a British Cromwell at Incheon beach.



Assuming that I can trust the person who posted of course.


Cheers,

George


OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 642

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 1:21:10 PM
I think that if that's a heating system they have a tank in the parlor.

On reflection those could be used as stands for bushes meant for camouflage. Or not.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 1:27:20 PM

Quote:
I think that if that's a heating system they have a tank in the parlor.

On reflection those could be used as stands for bushes meant for camouflage. Or not.
--OpanaPointer


I noticed another tank in the distance, in the photo, that was aiming in the same direction. Is it possible that the casings were just used to mark position as in "you park here"?

The anecdotes that I read about that heating system indicate that the soldiers were quite pleased with themselves. "More heat than you would think", one of them said.

It looked like a risky system to me since they were dripping gas or diesel into this system but I suppose that they were cold enough that the risk was worth it.

Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 2:31:33 PM
It looked like a risky system to me since they were dripping gas or diesel into this system but I suppose that they were cold enough that the risk was worth it.

 The standard field stoves used by the U.S. Army in the 1980s were not jerry-rigged out of old shells, but the drip system was the same. Safe enough, but the drip system was out of a five-gallon gan that often ran dry about 3:00 AM. Thus, when we got up thereafter, the tent was nice and chilly First priority for some lucky guy in the tent was putting up the next can and getting the stove going again. The only real safety problem was if the stove got too much fuel and burned so hot that the metal smoke exhaust pipe could get hot enough to set the tent on fire.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 2:34:39 PM
On reflection those could be used as stands for bushes meant for camouflage. Or not.

 They could be for positioning tanks providing indirect fire (a known location).

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 642

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 2:37:43 PM

Quote:
On reflection those could be used as stands for bushes meant for camouflage. Or not.

 They could be for positioning tanks providing indirect fire (a known location).

Cheers,

BW
--BWilson

Yeah, that's what I meant by "bearings". "Mouth of the pass, #1", etc.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 2:41:48 PM
Did the US produce Sherman tanks with a 76 mm gun mounted?

George,

 Yes, starting in 1944 IIRC. A bunch went to the Russians, the Canadians, and the Poles again IIRC. By the end of the war, I think the U.S. Sherman force in the ETO had around 35% 45% armed with the 76-mm gun. Postwar, the short-barreled 75-mm models were quickly turned out of the Army's inventory.

 On edit. Over 2,000 of the 76-mm models went to the Russians and a further 1350 to the British, the bulk of which ended up in Italy. The Poles in their 1st Armoured Division had some 180 of this kind in June 1945. Through some channel, the French had around 50 of them from February 1945 until the war's end. I was mistaken about the Canadians getting them in World War II.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 4:04:06 PM

Quote:
I was mistaken about the Canadians getting them in World War II.


Canadian armour did have Fireflies among their tanks of course. All Commonwealth tank troops had one 17 pounder and 3 regular Shermans.

And we all know that Michael Wittmann was killed by a Firefly operated by the Sherbrooke Fusiliers.

The Fireflies were available from Jan. 1944 and landed on D-day.

But if the base Shermans were manufactured in the US, were they shipped without turrets and then had the 76 mm mounted in GB? Or did a base Sherman arrive and then the Brits converted it? Apparently British factories turned out 2100 Fireflies.


The purchase by Canada of 300 M4A2 76mm (W) HVSS Sherman directly from the US occurred in 1946. As mentioned, the Sherman tanks used during the war were left. Many stayed in the Netherlands and in Belgium and used by their post war armies.

Cheers,

George







BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 4:10:34 PM
But if the base Shermans were manufactured in the US, were they shipped without turrets and then had the 76 mm mounted in GB?

 Pretty sure they came with turret and 76-mm gun from the U.S. (recall these types also went to the Russians, U.S. units, etc.) The Firefly conversions were a different story, those were done by the British.

 The British apparently weren't much impressed by the performance of the 76-mm gun and that is why most of the 76-mm Shermans they got were sent to units in Italy, where the antitank threat was lesser than that of NW Europe (according to S. Zaloga).

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/6/2018 5:34:58 PM
Bill, I read that US that did not wish to adopt the 76mm initially.

Part of that was an policy of a build America policy but another part was the criticism of the large flash of the 76 mm and the recoil.

They also considered that a tank like the Tiger was rare but when the Germans began to flood battlefields with Panthers, the US changed it's mind.


As for Sicily and Italy, there were places that tanks were ineffective but in some areas in river valleys, tanks were needed and German defences against them were thick.

Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/7/2018 1:29:42 AM
George,

 I'm not following the "build America" comment. Is it possible you have confused the British Firefly's armament (17-Pounder) with the American M1 76-mm gun (meaning the Shermans with the M1 76-mm gun were "built American"). The 17-Pounder and the M1 76-mm gun were not the same weapon. Bear in mind the M1 76-mm gun is distinct from the Sherman's original 75-mm "short" M3 gun, and the M3 is distinct from the OQF 75-mm developed by the British.

 I have read the U.S. resisted adopting the 17-Pounder for the reason you stated. The 17-Pounder was superior to the M1 76-mm gun.

 Armaments summary. (The "tank" description is -very- abbreviated.)



Tank Weapon Bore Diameter Muzzle Velocity (APCBC ammunition) Notes

Sherman Firefly OQF 17-Pounder 76.2-mm 884 meters per second Sherman modified by Great Britain
Sherman IIA M1 76.2-mm 790 meters per second U.S. manufactured
Original Sherman M3 75-mm 618 meters per second U.S. manufactured
Cromwell IV OQF 75-mm 75-mm 610 meters per second British manufactured
Medium Tank M3 M2 75-mm 563 meters per second U.S. manufactured



Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/7/2018 7:59:44 AM
Quite possible that I have confused the two because the bore is essentially the same and my knowledge is rudimentary.

I will try to find the article that said that the US preferred to mate weapons with vehicles that they had designed. I got the sense that it wasn't for reasons of nationalism but more for practicality and control of design. The British were making conversions to install the 17 pounder and the US preferred a gun designed for the tank.

I believe that after Anzio and the appearance of large numbers of Panther tanks that the US did test the 17 pounder at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds but decided not to use it, even though it clearly gave the allied tankers a fighting chance.

They realized that the previous rationale that a better gun was not needed because the likelihood of meeting one of these tanks was low, was inaccurate.

The British did offer 17 pounders but the US was working on a 90mm gun for a next generation tank.




So what were the advantages of the 76.2 mm gun that the US installed on the Sherman, over the 17 pounder? Your chart indicates a lower muzzle velocity.

Did the US gun give less of a flash or was the recoil managed differently?


Canada did produce a Grizzly tank with a 17 pounder installed. It was made at the Montreal Locomotive Works which was a subsidiary of an American company.
It never saw combat and was used only for training purposes. Really, just a modified Sherman. Only 188 produced. The tracks were superior to the Sherman.
Some say it had slightly upgraded armour and a little more range.

But the differences weren't enough to make it worthwhile to continue production when Sherman tanks were being produced at a rapid rate in about 10 US factories.

Canada did produce the Sexton, a self propelled gun with the 17 pounder mated to a Ram or Grizzly tank.

The Brits actually wanted US M7 Priests but there were problems with the fitting of a 17 pounder to it.

So GB asked Canada to come up with a design and the result was the Sexton 1 built on the Ram. Over 2000 of these SP guns were built in Montréal but on the preferred Grizzly chassis. They were called Sexton ll, The Aussies produced them too using the Canadian design.

This one is on display at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.



I presume that that is a 25 pounder mounted.





Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/7/2018 9:04:28 AM
So what were the advantages of the 76.2 mm gun that the US installed on the Sherman, over the 17 pounder? Your chart indicates a lower muzzle velocity.

George,

 I'm not aware of any advantage, although, it may have been a bit more practical as the gun sat "correctly" in the mount. I think I have heard the 17-Pounder on the Firefly had to be rotated 90º for some reason (I may be confused.) But as far as armor penetration goes, the 17-Pounder was the superior weapon. Worth noting the Shermans with M1 guns held their own in the Korean War against T-34 tanks armed with 85-mm cannon.

 Some of the U.S. leadership did not like the M1 76-mm, believing the old M3 75-mm to be 'good enough'. Apparently, the high explosive ammunition for the M1 was not considered as effective as that of the 75-mm M3. I would guess the tank crews themselves preferred any weapon with higher muzzle velocity. Still, regardless of the armament, the armor of the Sherman tanks was not as heavy as that of the Tigers and Panthers. If I had to guess, I'd say the Sherman with either the M1 or the 17-Pounder was roughly the equal of a German Mark IV tank.

 The Soviets apparently felt abused enough by German guns to fairly rapidly adopt a 100-mm gun for the T-54 tanks about five years after the war ended. NATO did not catch up until later in the 1950s when the British developed the 105-mm L7 (an outstanding tank cannon btw).

 Of course, it wasn't all a "bigger is better" race. In the Second World War, the gunner's optics of the Sherman tanks markedly improved (better magnification) and postwar, items like rangefinders became standard equipment. By the Korean War, a tank with the latest equipment had a much better chance of a first-shot hit at a given range than the tanks of World War II.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/7/2018 10:54:55 AM

Quote:
It looked like a risky system to me since they were dripping gas or diesel into this system but I suppose that they were cold enough that the risk was worth it.

 The standard field stoves used by the U.S. Army in the 1980s were not jerry-rigged out of old shells, but the drip system was the same. Safe enough, but the drip system was out of a five-gallon gan that often ran dry about 3:00 AM. Thus, when we got up thereafter, the tent was nice and chilly First priority for some lucky guy in the tent was putting up the next can and getting the stove going again. The only real safety problem was if the stove got too much fuel and burned so hot that the metal smoke exhaust pipe could get hot enough to set the tent on fire.

Cheers

BW
--BWilson


So did the fuel burn cleanly or did you guys all smell like fuel? Was it gas, diesel or both?

Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/7/2018 1:37:15 PM
George,

 So far as I recall, it was a grade of gasoline we called 'mogas'. [Read More]

 Yeah, we smelled of various things, but not fuel. Uniforms worn several times without being washed, oils and pastes associated with equipment and uniform maintenance, plus the tents were impregnated with something to keep them waterproof but which had a powerful odor. In spite of all that, we kept clean and those odors were usually not noticeable. The fuel burnt cleanly enough, there was not a lot of smoke from the pipes or inside the tents.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/7/2018 1:54:30 PM
Thanks Bill. The READ MORE on mogas wouldn't work though. I got "Directory Not Found" message.

Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/7/2018 2:00:58 PM
double

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 1:09:58 AM
George,

 Sorry about that. Link should work now.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 7:28:04 AM

Quote:
George,

 Sorry about that. Link should work now.

Cheers,

BW
--BWilson


Thanks Bill. OK so mogas is petrol for vehicles with spark plugs.

Was fuel budgeted and assigned for heating living spaces or did you guys have to nick it?

I have always been curious about how soldiers survive non combat conditions or try to make their world a little more comfortable.

Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 7:48:22 AM
 Fuel for running the tent stoves was standard allocation. We were issued anything necessary for operations in the field. No need to take items, although that kind of thing happened between units if one unit had something useful and wasn't careful about watching it! Usually, though, the supply people would go barter for what they wanted if it wasn't explicitly authorized.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 642

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 8:15:11 AM
Wouldn't gasoline fumes be a problem? I've used kerosene to heat an apartment in Sicily, but the heater came with a warning label: DO NOT USE GASOLINE. (It was Italian but we got the hint.)

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 642

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 8:16:24 AM
I wonder if the OP tank was even running. (Rule of thumb: If the photog is ahead of the troops, it's posed.)

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 8:18:42 AM

Quote:
Wouldn't gasoline fumes be a problem? I've used kerosene to heat an apartment in Sicily, but the heater came with a warning label: DO NOT USE GASOLINE. (It was Italian but we got the hint.)
--OpanaPointer


 I don't recall fumes. The five gallon can was outside the tent.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 8:24:11 AM
 This is a photo I took in 1987. To the left of the tent is a five-gallon can of fuel. The pipe can be seen poking through the top of the tent.



Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 6285

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 8:32:02 AM
Great photo Bill. So were the stove pipes of the insulated kind, that is, rated for high heat? I'm thinking of tent fires of course.

Was this the stove? Pretty fancy.



Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3846

Re: Captured "Commonwealth" tank in Korean War?
Posted on: 1/8/2018 9:20:10 AM
George,

 That may be one of the stoves, the design looks familiar, especially the little panel in bottom front. The pipes were not insulated and the temperature of the stove had to be watched. The pipes could get red hot otherwise. The unit I was in had a tent fire once due to that.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

 (1946-1999) Other 20th Century Battles    
 Forum Ads from Google