I find that it takes quite an effort to convince myself which is the front and which is the rear of the Mk D. It looks as if they should be the other way round. Does anyone have any idea why it was the stern that was upswept (rather like the prow of the rhomboids)?
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
The answer is in David Fletcher's "Mechanised Force" (1991) book. From the section on the Medium D.
"It was clear at once that here was a revolutionary machine, long and narrow with a fixed crew compartment at the forward end and track frames arranged, contrary to normal practice, to be higher at the back than the front. This curious arrangement was adopted in order to give the driver a clear view of the ground ahead and the gunners a good field of fire, but it meant that any attempt to surmount a high obstacle like a bank would have to be done in reverse, which offended just about every tactical precept ever written."
The Medium D prototypes were dogged with mechanical problems as well as the maintenance nightmare of the snake track system.
Thank you, Charles. That's done the trick. Haven't come across that book before. It crossed my mind that it might be something to do with reversing (like the upturned tracks on the Killen-Strait) but then I thought it couldn't possibly be. A very strange idea.
DF has rather a nice turn of phrase.
I thank you.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
David Fletcher's early books, published by the HMSO, generally are more pleasurable to read (imho) than his later works. I guess the US Publishers (Osprey, etc) insisted on an "international" (aka "dumbed down") English rather than the style of the early books.
