Talk:Ram tank

Ram (tank)

Not made any changes as i do not know its wrong, but under combat history the centurian is claimed to have been leased by the us government. I was not aware this tank was ever purchased by the us. - Rich tea man.

I think what was meant was that the US Government leased (in effect, hired) the Centurions (presumably from Britain) for the use of the Dutch. The Netherlands was still recovering from five years of occupation and was probably in no position to pay for them Ian Dunster 13:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the USA purchased the Centurions from the British in order to lease them to the Dutch under a MDAP-agreement. Of course technically the owner is the leaser and the recipient is the lessee. Indeed in the Fifties a full half of the Dutch materiel budget was paid for by the USA. All of the equipment remained US property. Most people were unaware of this arrangement. In the late Sixties part of the Centurions were sold by the USA to Israel. In October 1973 the USA ordered the Dutch to deliver as many Centurions as they could do without to Israel, to bolster the Israeli tank fleet during the Yom Kippur War. Arab nations saw this as an affront by the Dutch and included The Netherlands in their oil boycott. In 1986 the Dutch materiel bureau tried to sell the remaining Centurions to Austria — applying Dutch (Continental) law under which the USA after 30 years lost ownership — only to receive a polite but insistent notice from its US counterpart asking them when they ever had got permission to do so. The original agreement after all stipulated Common Law was applicable! The deal went on but the money flowed into the US treasury! :o)--MWAK 09:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting. With a reference or two, that would make a good addition to "Centurion tank". —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 15:46 Z

I'm in the (slow) process of expanding the Dutch (i.e. the nl:) Centurion article. When I'm finished, I'll mention some interesting tidbits in the English one.--MWAK 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the Ram in the picture looks like a MKI. Ram IIs were made with no sponsoon doors and no front left machinegun turret. That picture has both. One thing that is not mentioned is that in 1941 the Ram made it to the Maryland US proving grounds where it was evaluated. Some changes were suggested like a recessed turret ring and of course a 75 and turret to match. If you look at a right angle view of the Ram I or of a Ram II without the machinegun turret it looks like a what? The Ram was a predecessor to the British named Sherman tank.(Brocky44 10:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

I take it you mean the info box picture? It's an early production MkII, there was some overlap in features between marks. It does have a 6pdr Mk3 tank gun, which is basically what makes a Ram II.

With reference the to similarities of the Ram and Sherman. As I understand it the T8 prototype (which became the M4) was developed completely independantly from the Ram, and their similarities were down to their common ancestry and design briefs. However, the Ram was evaluated alongside the T8 at one point. Getztashida 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ram was designed for the British and Canadians as a replacement for the M3 Lee/Grant in that it had the main armament in a 360-degree traverse turret. British experience of the Grant had shown that the sponson-mounted 75mm imposed severe tactical disadvantages, in that the 75mm was the only gun carried that had any significant anti-tank capability, the smaller 37mm mounted in the turret being almost useless against the then-current German tanks. So the British requested in-effect, a Grant with a new upper hull and a fully-traversing turret capable of mounting the 75mm. At the same time the British Tank Mission was in the US and requested a similar vehicle also based on the Grant that was later to become the Sherman. As the Sherman was expected to take some time in coming to fruition the Ram was ordered as a stop-gap, but by the time the Ram was ready, production of the Sherman had already begun and as a result the British and Canadians decided on the Sherman, which was going to be available in much greater numbers than the Ram, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"The official Canadian history of the war compares the Ram to the Ross rifle as examples of unsuccessful Canadian weapon designs. It states that given the Sherman's superiority," - at the time of the instigation of the Ram - c 1940-41 - the Sherman did not yet exist nor was there any guarantee the resulting vehicle if-built would be available to Britain and Canada due to the US's neutrality laws.

BTW, when the Ram was ordered Lend-Lease did not yet exist, nor was there any indication of it becoming available in the future. Britain was instead buying military equipment from the US via Cash-and-carry.

The Ram wasn't 'unsuccessful' - it was just never needed. The overall armour and gun performance was on a par with the early Sherman and there is no reason to believe it would not have performed as well in action as the Sherman.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.176 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ram tank in the Royal Netherlands Army

I'm having hard time finding any sources about Ram tanks in Netherlands service. All online sources i have found seam to be copy-paste from wikipedia. Any suggestions? --Kyng (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There used to be much better sites, but I still could find one:

http://www.pantser.net/wo2-nl/w02-RAM-OP-Command.htm

--MWAK (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)