"Entering the war without a tank industry, 16 Vickers Mk VI, 12 Carden-Loyd carriers, little hope of future help from England, and 219 WW1 era junked U.S. tanks, Canada started her own tank production. The British Tank Mission, in collaboration with the Canadian General Staff, designed a modified U.S. M3 which would become the Ram. The Ram used standard M3 mechanical components, with a Canadian designed hull and cast turret. The first 50 would mount the 40mm 2 pounder cannon and were designated Mark 1. The remainder were called Mark 2 and had the 57mm 6 pounder cannon. Several AA conversions were proposed for RAM tanks. Many of these conversions were found wanting. The famous AA adaption called Skink, often thought to be a RAM conversion was actually a Grizzley."
How would it fair against the germans?

Attached Images

ram2.jpg (16.9 KB, 7 views)

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

Nice Ram site I pottered onto recently:
Ram Tank

I'd always thought they never went to war but Bodston recently posted this lovely shot on ww2t of an OP variant in active service in Europe in August '44.


Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

It would have been roughly equal in performance to early Sherman variants except against soft targets with HE. The 6pdr has an anti-tank performance almost identical to the M3 75mm gun on a Sherman but fires a far inferior HE round (when it is available). The Ram has roughly equal armor to a Sherman so, for all intents, it is one.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

The British retained some 6pdr Churchill's in the 3 independent Brigades deployed in Normandy because the 6pdr was actually superior as regards armour penetration and accuracy, could maintain a better rate of fire and more rounds could be carried.

So it would have been fine in tank versus tank encounters (well not fine but as fine as most of the Shermans and Cromwell's) but as above; poor HE so vulnerable to Anti-tank guns in particular.

Quite an achievement for Canadian Industry IMHO but not as much of an unlikely achievement as the Australian Sentinal tank (another M4ish tank)

I thought most of the Ram chassis were used to build Sexton SPG's ??

Most were, but they also served as OP tanks in Sexton regiments, some were converted to ARVs, kangaroos, Badgers (Kangaroo with a wasp flame gun) & gun tractors, 2 were even converted as possible platforms for the AVRE but were discarded in favour of the Churchill. There was also an abortive attempt to mount the 3.7 AA gun on a Ram chassis.

Cheers,
Adam

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

The badger sounds like a bit of a giggle; I know the RAM Kangaroo's were VERY popular when they started using them in Normandy. Having a flame unit on the front would have saved waiting for the Croc's to turn up

If you check the photo gallery on that Ram site you'll see a few more odd variants:
Well surprise surprise after pointing a jet engine at them...
And I can only presume the Conger variant was an attempt to contain the inevitable accidental explosion the equipment was prone to.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

The only Sentinel to even start any sort of production was the MkI (60 of them), with a 2pdr. Not very M4ish. Oh, it only had 65mm of Armour (albiet sloped), which again was not comparable to the Sherman.

__________________

Caption reads: Laxatives caused an elephant called Stefan to release an out-pouring of poo, burying it's pitiful trainer alive.

65 actually......

Good point about the gun although a 6pdr model was planned was it not?

And it looks M4ish, similar performance and dimensions? although now I think about it was it not called the Australian Cruiser?

Anyway as the front hull of an M4 was originally only 50.8mm the turret 76mm while the Sentinel was 65mm across the board so I would make that at around 28 ton a similar vehicle IF the 6pdr had been fitted as was at one point intended.

I like the Sentinel Hull MG cover

Sixty-six AC1's were knocked out (4 survive I believe?) and technically the AC1 is the only one to actually be called 'Sentinel'.
The ACII was an experiment with off the shelf truck engines, ACIII carried a 25pdr (uncertain whether any were fully completed) & AC4 had the twin 25pdr turret for testing if it could withstand the recoil force of it's intended 17pdr armament. The tests were a great success and a 17pdr was successfully fitted onto the ACIII's hull.
An excellent design, all abandoned in July '43 when Sherman production could meet all Australian needs.

Why is it that whenever the Ram's mentioned the Sentinel also crops up immediately? (same on ww2talk currently) something to do with 'lost commonwealth projects' and feelings of regret therein...

The poor old Grizzly hardly ever gets a mention.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

I bow to your greater knowledge in this matter

Yea that is odd as the Grizzly really WAS virtually an M4A1. I suppose If you are Canadian or Australian you have a vested interest but the rest of the world files them (or Achives them) in the back of the mind under as you say 'lost commonwealth projects' although had the M4 had volume production problems they could have been a fine Insurance policy and then we would be patting them on the back like M4's and Spitfires

I think it was enormously sensible for both countries to persue their own indigenous designs 'just in case', both did fantastically well from a practically standing start too. It's often neglected slightly just how much materiel production Canada lent to the war effort, from trucks to valentines the figures are enormous.

One little snippet on indigenous designs, it was even considered by the British (1943ish? I'll have to check) that it might be worth dropping all indigenous armour projects (Cromwell, Comet etc.) to concentrate solely on the Centurion and relying wholly on US imports until that very promising vehicle was ready.
Now there's a 'what if' for people to have pointless arguments about .

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

Well they would have had to build the Cromwell to build the Centurion since it was the same automotive system so I can see why that didn't happen.

Although Cromwell's only ever equipped 6 battalions so from a certain perspective the UK almost did drop the building of indiginous Medium Tanks concentrating on Churchill's (and there were not many of those either; only 3/8 of the number they wanted on D Day) converting Firefly's/M10's and so on safe in the knowledge Uncle Sam was on the case and the M4's would flood in.

Adam,

I just read Buckley's account of the debate over whether to scrap medium/cruiser & Infantry tank building completely and it IS a very interesting what if. To start with it COULD have resulted in the Centurion entering service considerably earlier; perhaps late '44 in numbers .........hmm that would have been interesting.

The Buckley book's where I picked up that snippet, I hate the way 'what if's' tend to go but that one really did make me think 'hmmmmm?' and I'd not heard it before. Wouldn't it be nice to read some German reports on how obsolete their armour had become for once .

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

It would be nice but cannot help thinking that being the Tankie at the front making such a defeatest comment may not be a good move

Cent still most likely shredded by HV in Normandy anyway...
Least it'd have something to confidently fire back with.

Anyway, back to Rams, seems remiss to have any chat about Canadian Armour without paying homage to the mighty 'Maple Leaf Up':
Canadian Armour
Which is something of a specialist in it.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

Good link, cheers VP.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.