steveo578

Hi mate, In short no, what i'm suggesting is that you get in touch with the dept. that test vehicles for compliance (prosecutions) in your local force area and see if you can have your vehicle looked over by a qualified officer/technician for the purposes of compliance -hence the term "voluntary" -you are volunteering the vehicle for examination you have not commited commited an offence. I am suggesting this only as car & comercial mot cannot do it as i don't think there is an authority (though obviously expertise) to attest C & U with regard to dimensions, nor does Single Vehicle Approval Test as it doesn't cover "commercial" vehicles over 5000kg ( I assume your vehicle is beyond that weight) which might have given you a decission with regard to Dims. Steve

That isn't that much different from what I said If I bring a vehicle in from aboard and register it, it has to conform with at the date of registration not for C&U at the date of construction. A vehicle of earlier registration has to conform at the date of its registration plus any changes of C&U not covered by specific exemptions -an example of this was the fitting of rear seat belt 1987? regulations which were not retrospective -but obviously if they were retrofitted to a car of earlier registration they had to conform to the current regs. Lighting regs. recent amendments allow for vehicles to be fitted as new with high intensity LED indicators and side lights -however to fit the same LED lamps to a vehicle originally fitted with filaments lamps is a breach of C & U until such time as the DOT approves a LED- none filament equivelant which apart from a some commercial & PSV complete clusters I don't think they have as yet -but it's a while since I constulted the regs. and I think we are playing at spliting hairs and that really isn't benefiting the thread.:-D Steve

Just in case they are missed there are 4 other interesting links on this site http://www.pakdef.info/museums/armymuseumgallery.html This link covers the Army Museum in Rhalpindi and includes many shots by the author of the "scrapyard site" For anyone who gets out to Pakistan there is also a museum at the PAC depot at Lahore -but be careful the guards can get very upset if you start clicking away with a camera like an madman. For those interesting in aircraft these are good esp. the massor wreck site http://www.pakdef.info/museums/pafmuseumgallery.html http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/warbirds/index.html http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/warbirds/wrecks_masroor.html Steve

BTW there seems to be a 3.7in mobile A/A gun parked next the SA8 variant. Steve

The Portugese Grizzlies which were MAPD but from Canada (probably funded with US money) were de-milled by only having the barrel chopped off and chucked into the turret. At about the same time Greek stuff was de milled by having all the armour cut from the hull at the buyers expense. Later (1990s) Danish stuff for example M41 and Cents were completely destroyed to the point where it could have been fed through a largish hole -about 1metre square. I would hope that if any of this stuff could be rescued the minimal action would be required as long as it was taken out of the country to Europe as the fear is it might be used in the tribal areas or even Kashmir or Afghanistan - remember Pakistan is almost a war zone - everyone out there is worried by arms deals Steve

Very nice and quite some rare stuff -M19s and Sexton M7 M32 in particular the LTV is a LVT3 bushmaster agaian quite rare and in great condition -however whether any of this could be acquired even with the almost mandatory bribes as most was supplied under MAPD and requires end user destruction. Steve

Probably C & U current at time of vehicle first registration -not year of construction for prosecuction purposes C&U examination are conducted by police C&U examiners (tape measures are used) and must therefore include civilian testers at commercial vehicle test centres -which is where suspect commercial vehicles are taken after a police C&U examiner permits its movement on a highway to the test centre, or orders it to be transported to a test centre for examination. If you are certain your vehicle is less than the max. specified width it probably wouldn't hurt to enquire whether a commercial vehicle test centre would issue you with a voluntary certificate of compliance to allow you to inform the DLVA it conforms ie not your word for it. Steve

I think you mean Comets (A34) and Charioteers

Certainly others had the same problem -lots of books proove it:nut:. Steve

Personally I don't like to see anything on a civilian car that may be regarded as a blue light, however a 3 to 5mm diameter 10ma 2.5volt none flashing light is pretty difficult to confuse -personally I would prefer to see a white lights. I also think that the whole system of lights on vehicles needs rationalising current vehicle legislation causes more problems than it resolves. Steve

I was trying to be diplomatic:angel:. I believe the Kiwis were hoping for a "proper" Sherman. Am I correct in thinking that Grizzly 176 came off SPTA, was it the only one alocated to SPTA? and does anyone have better photos of it either before or after it went to NZ. Photo Grizzly 176 Judith fitted with Sherman style tracks Steve

The transmission housings are straight fixes -the single piece has advantages over the 3 piece in field maintenance as the components are pre-alligned so it would be unlikely given the oppertunity to have a 3 piece fitted to a tank in wartime if a single piece was available. Suspension units are pretty similar I think it 16 bolts per bogie 4 horizontal into the floor and 5 each side into the walls 2 extra at the top, however replacement of VVSS and HVSS suspension can only really done in a factory as the return roller fittings have to drilled and the chamfer machined. the older M3 type bogies were sometimes replaced in the field with M4 bogies on early Shermans and some M3s such as TRV M31s. There does seem to be a terrible lack of British M4s but there are propbably a few in private hands that are marked up as British vehicles- surprising at least one ex 4/7RDG service man served in the fledgling IDF armoured force too. What I tend to dislike is M50 painted with WW2 tank markings- I even prefer to see Canadian home forces markings on M4A1 Grizzlies -but obviously they often get used in WW2 movie work which is fair enough. If you don't ask you don't get, I asked before going down there- sometimes it's as simple as that -they were glad of the potential publicity. steve

IMO if DLVA say all military tracked vehicles it will probably apply retrospectively - english law does not have the "Grandfather" clauses seen in other common law stautes (ie Canada and U.S.A) Many people wonder why "twat lamps" aren't prosecuted - the little LEDs don't count as they are not filament lamps, as low wattage -less than 5w "decorative lights" not interfering with the function of statutory vehicle lights and don't have a total surface area in excess of the parabola of the side lights of the vehicle- try working that out on a rainy winter night - nor are they covered by the emergency vehicle regs as they are not moving/flashing lights nor are they intending to decieve. Steve

Hi Michel That was a quick response to my post -I'm impressed. It's an actractive tank even from behind:-D I assume the number you use for your photos are signicant to you but it could show how easy it is to get confusions Grizzly N°69 2.jpg Grizzly No176 is actually the Grizzly at the New Zealand army museum, it was one of the Grizzlies that were slated for targeting by the British MOD when the bottom dropped out of the Grizzly market in 1984 -fortunately many were recovered before any real damage was done -including No 176 which was refurbished for the Bovington tank museum by a contractor in Sturminster Marshal and swapped for something from NZ -I think it was an M41. Steve

Not at all, producing such a list IMO would be a victorias secrets catalogue for certain people and organisations in AFV restoration, esp those who have an "in" with the authorities- I've seen it before. A prme example was Chris Shilito Armour in Focus surviving Churchill site- hardly anything that was on that site that was not privately owned has been comprehensively looted- it was like watching a movie about fine art robbery. Steve

Yes totally different -The PT76 was developed from wartime experience via the K90 tank -under N. Shashmurim at Kirov plant and was in production in 1951- with a combat team of similar automative AFVs such as the Btr50 and the ASU 85 out of Petrov design bureau. The BMP1 and BDM 1 were much later the BMP was designed first from 1959 and the BMD 1 was particularly a result of the Cold War /post Cuban Missile crisis need to air drop powerful support equipment to paratroops. Apart from the turret there is nothing in common- BMP1 is Chelyabinsk designed whereas the BMD 1 was Volgagad. The BMP1 drives from the front sprocket with a forward mounted motor, BMD1 is a rear sprocketed rear engined AFV-the tracks are very different BMP having a comparatiely advanced track with outer guides single roads wheels. BMD1 has centre guide track of more traditional style, with split wheels. The battle concept is different the BMD is a support vehicle rather like a mini tank it even has a pair of machine guns fixed in the nose -similar in concept to the old M3 Stuart tank. Steve

It has all the signs of sectional removal of a targeted area after a test -which I wouldn't have thought would take place at Lulworth:confused: There are places with much better security. Alternatively over enthusiastic scrappers -there was huge amounts of cuting done to illegaly dispose of the Turk-Line AFVs in Bulgaria. As Big Al said treaty obligation wrecking was done with explosive charges. Steve

Hi Michael, I've studied Grizzlies from the 1980s and used to run a list (data base well not quite) which has now become a little out of date. I've examined the Grizzly in question and can confirm it is No69. The simple (technical) reason why the Turnhout Grizzly is 69 not 9 is its armour configuration, it has welded on appliqué sponson armour if it was No9 it would have a smooth carapace without either appliqué or cast in armour re-enforcement. Grizzlies numbered from 1 to certainly 25 have smooth hulls 25 is the Bovington tank mentioned in the Gateguards thread. Appliqué hulls start at around 26 to 30 the earliest I have so far confirmed is No38 but photos of earlier tanks IDed by DND numbers take it back to No.28 and so far the CT DND Shop No. algorithm has not let me down. The highest number for welded appliqué Grizzlies is No114 (confirmed in USA) Bulged tanks start between 115 and 119 ( 119 is the Ist bulged tank I have confirmed now in USA). The last confirmed Grizzly extant is No.185 at Portsmouth D.Day museum. As to "soixante neuf" it was one of A.F. Budge Grizzlies and was marked Anne -I believe for Tonys wife. It was transfered to Mike Stalllwards facility in Kent -which is where I examined the Shop Number - having been given permision as long as I rewrapped the tarpaulins afterward. If only the 9 is now visible- then either the paint has gotten too thick, the viewer does not have sharp enough eyes or the number has been altered- personally as I'm generous I think it is probably the paint. It was then shipped to the Museum of the Instruments of Conflict and Justice in Geneva and when that collection was dispersed it eventually became part of the Turnout collection -it is still marked the same as it was while in Geneva. I'll repeat the photo of number 68 to show how weak the stampings and note someone has actually stripped back the paint. The weakest and most problematic stamp is that for 7. The tank number 7 which is plated and it's number was confirmed as CT160199 - DND 75-993 the number was so poor it was thought to throw out the number sequence, being reported at various times as No.8 and No.9, however the tank which is now in Belgium was examined by Guy Retters, himself a Grizzly owner, and his opinion is that the number is actually 7 as it should be and thus the number are sequencial. As I mentioned on the gateguards thread "Smokin Jo" a Budge Grizzly was reported as number 1 because the 7 was very faint -it was also given the CT and DND for tank No 76 but that was possibly down to faint paint marking visible in paint layers being mis -interperated, Ct 160264 against CT160269 and DND 62-691 against DND62- 696. Having said that the co-ordinator of Budge was emphatic that Smokin Jo was not the first production Grizzly, -that is the Duxford tank. Steve

They were Greek Cypriot Nation Guard vehicles, S

The six wheeler represents a BA10 armoured cars the penultimate of a long series of these vehicles (BA1 Ist built in 1932) which were also in service in Spain during the civil war- Spanish copies were used by the Germans as trojan horses during the inital stage of Barbarosa. Allowing that the vehicles have to be built in a restricted chassis hull track width etc many are very good although some just don't get there especially the Pz38t and the AEC Armoured car turret is way off- odd choice for Russia that one- although Kubinka has one supplied as a sample during WW2. Steve

Do you mean horse drawn as in 13pdr RHA, unmodified Mle 1897 and other WW1 types or are you going for the victorian and US civil war type - muzzle loaders etc like M1841 and M1857s? Steve

Hi Hanno Thanks for that it's a new one on me -I like the Lend Lease to Russia stuff - beats me why these b****rs can't park properly.

Must have been a really high quality propelant to kill at that sort of range, Rainham to Chobham:shocked: and why are window cleaners always the victim of the Army :cool2: Steve

Very nice:nut: should keep lots of members happy for hours. Looking through I noticed a nice grizzly listed as tank number 9- I would think it is possibly Shop No.69 former the Budge tank Anne which I think went to that weirdly named weapons museum in Switzerland -possibly it has escaped. Steve

If you continue to post such deep thoughts you might have to join the "Gild of Philosophers, Oracles, Soothsayer and Allied trades":nut: Steve