Best tank to restore

Yossarian

Yossarian

Forum Resistance Leader
Simple question,and scenario.

Your getting older and saved and managed your pay well, and you have a spark and a means and just feel like restoring an old fighting vehcile, more specifically a tank before you die.


So it's a simple thread, pick a tank no newer than 1980.

Can be any make, and from any country, and you must share a bit of why you would pick that tank.
 
Reality bites. I'd love to own my own Leopard 1 C2 with all the add on and stuff as we fielded them in Afghanistan. But the logistics on the vehicle would make repairs almost imposible without an ARV or overhead crane.

I guess a Hybred Shermin with the dual Caddilacs would be a far more realistic project. Not to mention parts would be easier to come by. Still, there's nothing like the smell and feel of that super charged V10 rumbling away.
 
Haha must be the Viper of MBTs.


But I would amazingly pick a T 54/55.

I already would know that parts are very readily availible.

And I would restore it to Cold War Soivet specs and coloration.

I admire the fact that this tank was so massivley produced, although not really effective in today's terms, it had to the west worried for a short time after WW ll, and I cannot think of any better piece of Cold War history that captured the fear the West had of a massive Soviet tank assualt through western Europe any better than a T 54/55.

Only bad part however....it's so freakin cramped....

Close second? A British Crusader tank, painted in a North African campgain scheme.

I just love profile of this tank, and the bravey of the crews that have manned it, even against German tanks with superior gunnery range, meant a fast paced sprint under fire until the crews got within range with their own guns, an experiance that must have been harrowing.

Plus it looks fun to drive.

If I restored an armored vehicle, first off, its that it would not become some static muesum piece, it would be fully mobile under it's own , factory designed power:-D
 
Last edited:
The Crusader would be a hard one to get parts for. The T55 would definately fit the bill for easy parts and affordability. I guess my preferance for the Leo 1 is due mostly to familiarity. However, as a tank that drastically changed the way the west thought of tanks, the Leo 1 has earned a place of respect. Look at that hall, and every NATO Hall that came after it. It's there. Even the Americans copied the layout for every tank they built since. And the pack concept has become standard. 1950's tech that could be changed out in 15 min. The newest packs today are still modelled after that design. The Europack even looks the same. The 105mm is still the pinicle of Tank Gun design. Not as accurate as the old 20 pounder, but giving increased armour penetration. Still, as a Tank Gun it offered a good balance of weapons effects. Every gun that has come since has been an Anti-Tank Gun. The 120 packs a punch, but can not match the 105 in the anti pers role. The Brits have spent millions trying to develope a 120 round that even holds a candle to the 105 HESH. This is why Canada is still using the Leo 1 in Afghanistan dispite having a small fleet of Leo 2s on the ground. The Leo 2 just doesn't have the same effect when the little red button gets depressed.
 
That's really interesting stuff,

I am no armor expert, but any ignoramus can see that the world over both the Leopard 1 and 2 are tier one in terms of MBTs.

Although at different times in certain respects.

The Leopard 1 did send shockwaves in terms of development and how western tanks were desinged and helped formulate what we call today, a truly modern MBT.

Good stuff, and in another thread it would be awesome to hear about you experiance with this War Cat.


However since it's all about resto work in this thread.

I would say back to the Crusader, yes I am aware that the parts issue is very difficult to overcome, but pre fabricating based off official records would help, you just need a helluva steel worker, and someone who specializes in mechanics on military equiptment, especially older British equiptment.

If I had a group of older amor enthusists together, you would bet I would have an old Hand from the British Army's Armored community, most specifically armored mechnic, even and IDF mechanic from when the days the IDF fielded Bristish made or designed MBTs would help.

But major draw back with fabricating parts, is the complexitity and the pure lack of quality work when it comes to specific and rare jobs like getting a old Crusader tank running again. Along with missing or lacking information on the mechanical and design layout of the tank as it was during WW ll.
 
The track and suspension is the sticking point. You would never be able to scratch build the suspension, and coming up with enough serviceable road wheels, pads and connectors would be expensive and time consuming. Under the deck probably wouldn't be so bad as the parts were the same on many differant vehicles, inclueding some civilian types.

The electrical wouldn't be so hard either as, once again common parts. A good Mat Tech could sort out any armour issues easy enough if you start with a good hall. No, it's the suspension that will kill the project. You would be better of rebuilding a Centurian. Loads more parts available.
 
180711655_ac06f1ee99.jpg


True, all the restored Crusaders that have been provided parts and the complex suspension pieces have most likely drained the pool, a lot of them coming from tanks that were either damaged in combat, or scraped after the war or even salvaged from gunnery ranges where they were used as target practice in the 50s and 60s.

The situation of the Christie suspension aquires my interest in the ability to give his designs excellent cross country performance, while giving the vehicle itself a lower profile while especially underway.

Bad side to the Crusader however is it's thin armor, speed and mobility must have played large roles in keeping crews safe while in engagments that involed enemy tanks.
 
We got a lot of parts off the Air Weapons Range in Cold Lake Alberta when we were restoring a Sherman 10 years ago. Even found 2 Skank Turrets with out a scratch on them. Air weapons ranges seem to have better parts than Anti Armour Ranges. Fewer hits and more training ordanance.

Still, to find serviceable road wheels and trank for a Crusader would take a lot of luck. Why British armour any way? Othere than Centurians and Ferrets there isn't much British stuff on this side of the pond to work with. Better to chose something that you might be able to find lots of parts for.
 
Zipperhead said:
We got a lot of parts off the Air Weapons Range in Cold Lake Alberta when we were restoring a Sherman 10 years ago. Even found 2 Skank Turrets with out a scratch on them. Air weapons ranges seem to have better parts than Anti Armour Ranges. Fewer hits and more training ordanance.

Still, to find serviceable road wheels and trank for a Crusader would take a lot of luck. Why British armour any way? Othere than Centurians and Ferrets there isn't much British stuff on this side of the pond to work with. Better to chose something that you might be able to find lots of parts for.
Click to expand...

If domestic familiarity is the key, then I cannot lie, other than a T 55,

I would choose a Cyrstler powered M4 Sherman, I have seen about half a dozen scattered throughout the country in various muesums and even one restored in drivable condition, powered with an old Cyrstler radial in it (back when they made good engines).

I know a TON of resources and places to go if I had questions about general topics on the M4, even a few reference tanks to look for cosmetic details, and to make it appear in war era coloration.

Another advantage hosted by the Sherman is so many countries used it, you can really go far in terms of what nation would you be restoring it under ( Example, if you could find the parts, you could make a Canadian, or even IDF Sherman).

Cool stuff, all you have to do is have it certified under state and federal law, the obivious being disabled weapons, other than that, having working lights, turret, and beatifully restored suspesnion and transmission, and you can really ruin someone's lawn hehe:p

Cool thing about a restored working tank, is unlike say a classic Pony car... you just kinda wanna get it filthy.
 
I'd think I'd stick with the V8 Cadilac engine. It was the same engine used in Cadilacs right into the 50s so parts are easy. Which suspension would you go for? The Horizontal might be easier to find, but most WW2 tanks had the Verticle. An Early cast hall or Hybred would be nice to see moving again. Most Shermans in Canada are newer welded halls. None of the WW2 Halls came back after the war so most halls you see are Korea era.
 
Last edited:
A cast hull with the older vertical suspension, the cast is different in the curvy apearance of the armored outside of the hull except in the later production during WWll it was like you said, a cast weld hybrid, also I knew about the old General Motors engines that where used during WWll in the M4, heck some types of that powerplant later apeared in civilian farm equiptment, but the only M4 I saw that was still functional had a Crystler Radial in it.

If I did run across anything later than an M4 A1, like even an Sherman ll or lll,possibly even a Firefly or A2 or A3, then I would like to do an IDF restoration on one of those particular models, and since the weapon would not have to be functional, then finding parts for the upgraded gun would not have to be so paramount, just need basically a barrel asembly for outside appearance. Although finding the French made 75 mm or even the 105mm upgraded gun parts to even secure it into place might be difficult.

As for cross country in the M4 , is the vertical suspension any better than any of the later horizontal suspension used in the M4 A3 for example? I always thought that any slight improvement in performance would mean a very complex design in case of numbers of parts and amount of tools needed to replace and service them.
 
Last edited:
Both the runners we have at the Strathcona's (look them up a Strathconas.ca) are Korean War era and thus have the newer horizontal and weld hall. I have never seen a verticle on a running tank so don't know how hard those are to work on. As far as the horizontal, a bunch of Canadian Tankers figured it out with a few old manuals and some advice form the older vets. It would be easier in Canada to rebuild a newer hall as parts are litterally laying on the ground at the tank ranges. Very few WW2 halls are around here to scavenge from.

The 105 would be a hard project. As far as I know only the IDF ever attempted to up gun that far, and they have stopped using the Super Shermans as a gun tank as far as I know. Parts would be impossible. As you don't intend on commisioning the tank, maybe a scratch build would look the part at least.

I would love to see an old Firefly bombing around again. If you ever get that lottery win and start the progect, let me know. I would love to see it, if not have a hand in finishing it.
 
It would be the build of a life time, that is for certain.

The reason I picked the WW ll Cast hull or the IDF Super Design for the Sherman is, well as you started, they seem pretty rare outside of static muesum pieces.

I would be like a moving time machine to have a fully functional (outside of weapons) Cast M4 with the orginal U.S. 75 mm gun. Even rarer a early model without the top venitilators.

The other reason I chose the IDF Super Sherman is because I like how the IDF showed allot of ingenuity adapting older hulls for extended life on the changing fields of armor. Plus the Super Sherman looks very imposing heh.

As for parts for a Super, it would be difficult to find, Israel does have some still around, but only as muesum pieces, not in active or even reserve service.

Last time I believe the IDF fielded such tanks was in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
 
They were still using Super Shermans into the 90s, and still using the Halls for Self Propelled and a really neat Ambulance variant into the new century.

The idea of a 76mm Firefly would be my obvious preferance. One of the few guns fielded by Allied Troops that stood a chance against the German Armour. The gun was actually rotated 90 degrees in order to get it to fit into the turret and several field mods were needed to increase reliability before they got it right. The Firefly was used through out Europe, and would be at home in any Commonwealth Scheme. I never understood why the Americans didn't adopt the gun. Although the M10 was effective so I guess it was just a differance in tactics.

I wonder how hard it would be to dig up some old cheveron track with duck bills? This is what they landed with on D-Day, although the duck bills were quickly phased out. Over the 1 year period that Shermans operated in Europe they went through at least 4 track designs.
 
What I would really love to have in my possession, is an original cast hybrid or early weld circa 1943, with the 76mm "FireFly" Gun as you stated, firing at over 3900 feet per second (faster than an typical 5.56x45mm ball point projectile) it would make a very unique, and interesting piece to bring back to life.

As for the treads, Single pin, cast links, lighter and I do believe Canada came up with the idea for use by the allies? Around 1943, looks allot like era German treads to.
 
Last edited:
I think pin track was a British design. They were still using it up to the Challenger. The track design we came up with for the Grizzly (the Canadian made variant of the Sherman) was a wider track, which I beleive used a modified suspension design (though I have only ever seen one Grizzly, at the Museum in Borden, and that was a long time ago) Canada didn't make many tanks when you look at other countries and compare. And the ones we did made were mostly used to make Kangaroo APCs or Sextant SPGs. Very few actually saw Battle as a gun tank. I guess pride would be the only reason the try to re-build a Canadian made Gun Tank. Still the Ram Design that we produced early war was a good tank. We copied the M3 Lee for the start point, and in the end the Americans copied the Ram for thier start point on the Sherman. The Americans were thae ones pushing for a bigger gun. For some reason we stuck with British doctoran and kept the smaller turrets in our design. And so the Sherman became the Tank and the Ram became the memory.
 
There is always the Centurion Tank which came into Service just after WW2 it was used in Korea and was even used in the first Gulf war in the 1990's. Israelis had quite a few of the and also the Canadians
 
I have always admired the performance of the Centurions, especially those used by the IDF, and the effectivness of this tank in trained hands.

But, one main factor in restoration for me would be the ease of maintenence and availiblity of parts which shouldn't be a huge hurdle to over come for the Centurion, but lastly the fun factor as far as driving :-D
 
Panzer V. the Panther. Coolest looking tank of WWII. Loads of inovative features and a bit of a hangar queen at first, but once they started ironing out the bugs, it was a mean beastie on the battlefield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top