Talk:Scammell Pioneer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scammell Pioneer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Manual transmission#Constant-mesh gearbox|constant-mesh gearbox]] The anchor (#Constant-mesh gearbox) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Power plant

Surely the power plant was not, originally, diesel? The British army was known to standardise on petrol power plants for ease of logistics in the field. The commentary at the 2007 Great Dorset Steam Fair when the Scammells paraded made specific mention of this yesterday. Observation of the cooling fan cowl and its incorrect placement for the currently installed diesel units appears to back this up. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit on an Explorer, (taken out of its frameset) shows a Meadows 10.3 litre petrol engine. Some research is needed by an enthusiast, here, to determine what was fitted to the Pioneer. Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also of use, though it refers to the Explorer, not the Pioneer. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article implies differently. Over to an expert. Happy to be proved incorrect if I am. Fiddle Faddle 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pioneer's engine is a Gardner 6LW diesel, one of the few diesel powered WO spec vehicles in use by the British army in WWII. Also numerically the R100 was not the main model. The recovery tractor (see photo on the main article) was the most numerous. The R100 and SV/1T, SV/1S and SV/2S shared a common powertraoin. The tank transporter (TCRU 20 and 30) had the Gardner engine but a double reduction diff. There were various pilots models but this info covers the main wartinme Pioneer production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.204.34 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicer picture

Are either of these a nicer pictures to use in the infobox?

This has the caption:

THE BRITISH ARMY IN FRANCE 1940: A Scammell Pioneer tows an 8-inch howitzer of 1st Heavy Regiment, near Calais.

And this has the caption: THE BRITISH ARMY PREPARES FOR WAR Scammell 6x4 Heavy Artillery Tractor and 60 pounder gun of 12 Medium Battery, Royal Artillery. Comment : This is a 60 pounder Mk II gun.

(Msrasnw (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Any image showing a good side view would be better than a front-on, as at present. I'd go with either of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either is better than the one we have. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose a merger of Scammell Pioneer Semi-trailer into this article. There were three variants of the one truck chassis, the heavy artillery tractor, the heavy wrecker and the semi-trailer that were almost identical mechanically. The two articles re currently quite small.Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support There's really no reason to split these. OTOH, Scammell Explorer should be a distinct article, if it's ever written. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]