Dear All,
Thank you for your warm welcome.
I did not see Daniel's post so I take no offence but welcome his retraction. In any case, I am sure that plenty of people are very rude about me on-line but I don't see that either!
I can assure everyone that I do not do engineering for current military equipment but although I would do so if it was required. Most of my work is in support of the REME Museum which is a registered charity. Nevertheless, I do have a very strong background in the military, defence and security. I have served for over 40 years in the TA, particularly in the REME.
I believe that it is of paramount importance that we keep ourselves safe and secure by being able to deter aggression. We failed to do that in the late 1930s and got our posterior kicked hard. Our current defence and security situation is a political matter and not appropriate for this forum.
I do believe that there is a value to preserving military vehicles and other equipment. During the Cold War we cleverly spent no more money on defence than necessary to deter, whereas our opponents spent all their available resource on defence and not on washing machines and other consumer goods. However, we made some horrible mistakes and I think it is good to keep them on show.
A classic example is seen with the REME Museum's 1958 Conqueror Armoured Recovery Vehicle that I work on. It was designed at a time when the Government's decision was to re-arm and increase defence expenditure. The vehicle really was a very good ARV but the designers were profligate with resource and public money on this and other projects. The main winch was good but the winch spade fitted to the rear of the tank to resist the pull of the winch was far too exquisite. The hydraulic system consisted of two pumps which ran the system at full pressure whenever the PTO was engaged. There were hydraulic pipes everywhere.
The spade was pinned to the back of the tank with precision pins but it's working load limit was 135 tons. What would be wrong with 3" dia pins with a 40 thou clearance? Even more profligate was the means of securing the two hydraulic rams that lifted the spade. The rod and cylinder ends were secured with spherical bearings (even though the spade was secured with precision pins). These must have been fabulously expensive, bearing in mind that they only built 23 of these vehicles. Again, what would have been wrong with a nice sloppy fit that could accommodate any misalignment?
Finally, the tension links which prevented to spade from folding right underneath the tank. Obviously, precision pins again with only a few thou clearance. Extraordinarily, the links failed under maximum load and had to be replaced by forged links to withstand the load.
I apologise for, unusually, going on a bit. However, the story about the Conqueror is one all about engineering. Yes it was exquisite but it was far from economical or easy to manufacture. That is the lesson to be taken on board. If you think that we are not making similar mistakes with Defence equipment, dream on!
I look forward to contributing to this forum and picking up some useful techniques.
John