steveo578

I was under the impression that a PM was sent to the thread starter if a thread was pulled.:confused: Steve

Its probably an MG13 -fairly common DEAC weapon as lots disposed of by Portugal in the 1980s. It could also be the Mag from a MG35 Knorr-Bremse which was one of the substitute standard weapons used by the Waffen SS, "police units" and 2nd line units like foreign legions. I dont know if the MG35 Mag. was interchangeable it has similar rib work. Mike -you beat me to it -it takes time to scan stuff Steve

The DLVA/VOSA is an outsourced department of government and some-one's local opinion cannot legally change policy. Such departments administer the law, it does not make law. A change can only be effected by;- a). A change of policy or law enacted by the Government/Parliament. b). A review of current legislation by a Commisioner (who is an appointed judge, recorder or sometimes a senior Q.C.) who is legally qualified to interpret or re-interpret legislation but IMO it would be unlikely that such a circumstance would happen without some form of recourse to the opinion of interested parties -for example the MVT, as it is unlikely that a Commisioner would have sufficient personal knowledge of the various subjects put to him. The system is not fool proof unfortunately -often commisioners rely on legal clerks- interns-recently qualified dogsbodies to sift out commonplace appeals and briefs, which can lead to a "rubberstamp" style of justice. If a change in the administration of regulations was done without without recourse to a proper legal review- it could be challenged by a judical review. Steve

"No no after a full cost benefit analysis and budget deficit review that is the Future Main Battle Tank, -just deal with it "

Thanks for the clarification no offence was taken and I'm sure none was intended and not from my side either- I now understand the way the site is formulated and there is no need for you to apologise, it's to everyone benefit even mine that you posted it. Actually I'm not a great fan of German armour either - that I've seen many of them before just means I've had a few years longer at afv sudies- I saw my first German tank aged 7 or 8 so that's nearly 50 years ago- that makes me fell old:(. Steve

Hi Adrian Are those changes improved capacity- for example fitting smaller fuses or are they a high yeald explosive- same volume bigger bang? Steve

What do you mean draining oil- the russians keep it in the ground so we have to pay more:cool2:

Hi Adrian I was under the impression that the only wartime HE shell for 17pdr and 77mm gun was the Mk1 with No13 tracer irrespective of the charge of the cartridge. So did the designation remain the same for the higher capacity shell? Steve

Just to clarify/identify and to avoid anyone turning the monitor upside down:computerrage: -Its a British A12 Matilda and according to the Russian book Lend lease tanks it belonged to 170th independant tank battalion fighting in the Kalinin front in February 1942, -the guys with the hats are from the Command centre HQ of the 3rd Shock Army -so some-one is going to Siberia:-(. Steve

Thanks for that I seen this one before, I'm pretty sure its from the Russian State Archive of Cinema Photo Documents which means it is a form of open copyright-. No-one has ever stated the circumstances but the first tank has a substancial hole in the floor beneath the drivers station, so possibly the result of mines or bombs rather than a roll over in snowy conditions. Steve

And that is exactly the point the Germans in 1940 with inferior tanks, often facing superior Britsh and French armour ran rings around us. The superior German tactics (learned from the British) were designed to avoid superior enemy armour (leaving it to be destroyed by artillery- or aircraft) or in the case of blunting a counter attack -both in France in 1940 and in the Desert War of 1941 -42 was to use tanks and other primary targets to lure the British armour onto the anti-tank guns (often the 8.8cm FlaK for which there is no answer). By 1944 the British and Americans were doing much the same thing although many of the battles in the June to August period were bloody as the abilty to manouver could not be attained and it led to tanks being sacrificed -a prime example of this was Goodwood where the main brief of British forces was to fix the enemy while the Americans broke out/through in the West around St Lo. It wouldn't have made much difference if the majority of British Shermans were 17pdr equipped in these circumstances as the main enemy was A/T guns which the correct answer is a good HE shell. Goodwood in particular was a terrible loss of the British tank forces manpower- but it is war -sometimes (but rarely) it can be blamed on bad equipment, sometimes it can blamed on bad leadership -and it must be remembered that WW2 generals were junior officers in WW1 and that shapes their behaviour. As often as not the main cause of high or low casulaty rate is dependant on the enemy, whether he fights or flees- at Goodwood, strategically he should have withdrawn to a new line conserving assets, to await the flanking move from the West, they didn't and it cost the Britsh dearly, but then it exhausted the Germans, making their flight and defeat in the Failase pocket inevitable. On a tactical level an example of how a 17pdr armed tank force would be a liablity, the fairly rare 17pdr HE in WW2 was overpowered- the cartridge threw it like an AP shot over a long distance -only after the turn of the year in 1945 did the boffins decide a low charge HE round would do the job as well if not better- less velocity less barrel wear, but like the US 76mm shell it was alot less effective than the 75mm M48 HE shell. In November 1944 the British cleared the Schelt esturary and the Island of Walcheren, during this operation where no enemy armour would be expected Sherman 75s were landed mostly DDs only 2 survived the landing -most being swallowed by the muddy conditions - during the next 2 days these tanks shot 1400 round of HE -and probably alot of smoke too- had they been 17pdrs the barrels would have worn out and it is unlikely the supply train could have supplied that number of 17pdr HE rounds never mind having REME effect a barrel change on a Firefly in a combat zone. Steve

Yes certainly some photos are of vehicles that suffered bombing- for example the upturned Panthers and Stug 4. There are some photos I've not seen before -of particular interest is the Panther with extemporised armour on the turret roof and another with a standard wheel amongst a resiliant set, however I'm somewhat less than happy with the veracity of the site in question- whilst purporting to be about the Battle of The Bulge many of the photos- are straight lifts from other sites and references showing tanks -spgs involved in other battles and theatres of operation -some of them are from action in Brtainy and Normandy, others are from battles in Hungargy and Bohemia -including some of the last vehicles (Hezters) to be destroyed during the war in Czechoslovakia. One Jagdpanzer 4 is actually a 2006 photo by the Bulgarian enthusiast Vasko of an AFV that was recovered from the Turk-line in Bulgaria. Upshot is enjoy the pretty pics -don't take the context for granted. Steve

I don't doubt that the point you make is also valid, the point I was making was about butt welding prefabricated sections together rather than the traditional overlapping riveted plates at major frames prevelant in the wartime Smith Dock designed/built - Teesside shipbuilders consortium utility cargo vessels. Steve

Hi EddyProfound post but you are looking at tank technology from a Cold War -dare I say BAOR perspective. In 1939 the British Army regarded tanks as the modern steed to the point that officers tended to call tanks mounts. Their usage in warfare was little changed in concept from the days of the Crimean war, which in turn was taught in concepts of elan dating back to Alexander the Great at Issus in the Persian War. The purpose of armour was recce/expoitation for Light tanks and Cruiser and fixing the enemy in breakthough for the Infantry Tank. Where the British tank was deficient in firepower was in that it lacked a good dual purpose weapon- no doubt as a result of muddled thinking -and dare I say an almost Crimean idea of a clash of cavalry ( now armour) - the weapon -2pdr - was in effect a superb tank killer (long lance) until 1941 when another superb tank killer the 6pdr was introduced- neither weapon could in effect attack the "guns" either cannon in the Crimean persective or the HMG of the WW1 period. The Americans understood the concept better in that a tank was really there to take on every target but armour hence the great HE capability of the M3 gun- they however went too far in actually discouraging tanks from taking on armour - so by 1944 the British concept of having a mixed armament 75mm and 17pdrs to deal with distinct targets was probably better. As it was the 17pdr which was again a superb tank killer lacked a decent HE round until Post War. The Germans had a similar concept to the British in early WW2, but had actually read Basil Liddle Hart, J.F.C Fuller and had absorbed the conclusions of the British Firepower exercises of the early 1930s. Until well into the Russian campaign their weapons were less effective than the British weapons, but being a dictatorship Hitler was able to force his niave ideas of weaponry onto the Waffenamt which converted the Panzer 4 into a long rifled tank killer and forcing the development of the Tiger into a 8.8cm armed bemoth- no-one could argue with Adolf, who considered his concept of Splendid Cats to be a renewal of his Blitzkeig arm but these weapons were developed into a similar concept as the Centurion Conqueror and Cheftain were developed during the Cold War- they were there in defence to pick off the Bolshevik hoard. It is significant that despite the superiority of Tigers/Panthers and long barreled Panzer 4 and Stugs from the moment these weapons were deployed the wehrmacht was on the back foot- they had no successful blitzkeig from Kursk, only the re-taking of Kharcov involved a few heavier weapons and that the successful blitzkreigs were fought with simple comparatively light armoured vehicles. Probably not a wholy satisfactory answer (probably would need a thick book). Steve

Good point- possibly the blunt force of the shape of Tiger as opposed to KTs and panthers- a similar perspective has been recorded about the Churchill- I know the first time I saw the Churchill Merlin on OTA it had that effect, being positioned near the road turning the corner to be confronted by the -not huge but brutal lump- even though it was gunless. However it's not necessarily the sloped lines of other tanks that make them lack "presence" the JS3 certainly has it although JS2 doesn't to the same extent and surprisingly Covenanter (which is about as rubish as a tank can be) can have presence especially in movie/photos showing it advancing with the turret at the mandatory 10 o clock position (necessary to allow the driver to use his hatch for driving head up. Steve

However Olympic managed to survive a catistrophic collision that should have caused her to be scrapped- the ship had in effect broken its back and was tail wagging on its slow return journey to Belfast. Olympic continued to serve until 1934. I'm fairly sure that the liberty ship problem was due to welding and poor layout of prefabricated structural sections- the British built Teeside ship building consortium riveted equivelents to the Liberty ship never had that problem -although they were built with poor materials and were just plain s****.

Very true and I better correct my previous post before it becomes myth:D Hawke hit Olympic aft of funnel four and not as I previously said. As to the Titanic speed while the various vessels of the Olympic class varried somewhat we can be fairly sure that Titanic could not maintain more than 21knots with 23knots hoped for as a burst speed, whereas its rival Cunards Mauretainia could maintain 22-23knots and burst 24knots- hence that Titanic was built as a blue ribband candidate is also myth. There is a good chance that even 21knots might have been problematic due to the screw configuration of the Olympic class being 3 x shafts. Cavitaon and therefore vibration was always a problem with large centre screw vessels this was apparent in WW2 British aircraft carriers -that need a good sprint speed to enhance deck landings, Illustrious being the worst example having had it hull twisted by Kamikasze attack it ended its carreer with the centre prop removed. quite; dare I say a good dollup of "Belfast" logic involved- give them another 50years and they'll be taking yankies on "the troubles tours":shocked: Steve

Ok if you insist:D Problems with that scenario - where was the ice berg I'm certain it wasn't stuck on th pointy end of Titanic:shocked:, Titanic struck a glancing blow damaging the starboard side for about 80foot by the time they realised the ship was mortally wounded the ice berg would be miles astern. By that time being down by the head would make turning around impossibly dangerous-causing a more rapid sinking. Assuming a locally available suitable piece of ice berg was nearbye trying to land people particularly women and children onto an ice sheet from small boats in the dark would be difficult- no harbours or landing stages on ice bergs- even low lying ice can have walls 12feet high and underwater ice making it difficult to land. The possible solution may have been to make for a comparatively nearbye Califorian -but that assumes the Titanic was capable of manoever or even making any head way by that time. The worst thing is it's easy to have 20-20 hindsight in simple terms by the time the officers of titanic realised the ship was fatally damaged the ship was already too far gone to manoever it anywhere. Personally I'm staggered at why Northern Ireland in particular seem bent on "cellibrating" the titanic -it was nothing to be proud of. Steve

I know I will be called a pedant again:nut:, but I would be more willing to believe the Daily Telegraph article written by Mr Stanford if he managed to get simple things correct- Pippa Patten nee Wickes attains her title through her husband John (Chris) Patten -Lord Patten (Baron) of Barnes -therefore her title would not be the lady Patten but simply Lady Patten- the attition the to a title for example the hon ... or the Princess .... signify that the holder of the title was born to that title for example Princess Anne is The Princess Royal, whereas Diana could never be the princess Diana. AFAIK the title Lord and Lady Patten of Barnes was acquired- otherwise he could not be an MP without renouncing the title under the 1962 act. If Mr Stanford after the necessary education to be a bylined reporter on a national broadsheet can't get this right-I would be somewhat unlikely to believe the accuracy of anything he writes. I tend toward fesm_ndt take on it however HMS Hawke rammed Olympic. Olymipic may have been to blame for other reasons but the result was that Hawke put its exagerated victorian ram into Olympic aft of the fourth funnel and was so badly damaged it was rebult with a straight stem only to be lost shortly after the outbreak of WW1. Steve

Yes but a one stage before Jacques Littlefield aquired it someone cobbled the bits together and the photo shows similar welds to that on the original Jacques Littlefield turret to me it looks like the same one.

It's one of those how long is a bit of string questions?:cool2: If it is as happydayz123 says- rarer than a Churchill, Cromwell, Matildas Valentine or Crusader- then unless it not a variant of anything previously mentioned nor a prototype I would tend to look at either a light tank though Mk6 aren't rare just rare outside museums and A17 Tetrarch would be almost too rare to consider- the only others not mentioned are the early cruisers such as A13 up to Covenanter -which is fairly unlikely- even if one was found they tend to be too fragile to be restorable the earlier stuff A9-A10 would be too rare- but anyway hope springs eternal -I'll be facsinated to hear what it is:-D. BTW Alastair Valentines OPs and FOO gun tanks and A17 Tetrarchs (on D.Day) were also used in NWE there may have been a few A24 Cavaliers in NWE as OPs -one of the A24s I found on OTA had a repaired A/T round hole in the toe plate. Steve

The link dosen't give much detail but especially as it doesn't have a date it could be some of the wrecks swept up by Saumur in the 1970s. There was a pair of brothers in france who managed to hang on to a flakpanzer 38(t) as in the late 1980s they wanted trackwork to fix it up -whether they got any further with it is unknown.

Yes it was more than just a hull it was complete:shocked: the story is told in After the Battle Magazine not Wheels and Tracks (sorry I don't know which number). It was sold to a Dr Flick in Germany. A batch of Panthers were finished by the British after the end of hostilities, and the Bovington, RCMS Shrivenham and that found in the Surrey scrapyard were examples -there are/were several examples of JagdPanther that were also built at the same time- I think the bovington example is one but IWM London and the JagdPanther recovered from Pirbright were not. The British built Panthers have a simple track suport rail in place of the small return roller to the rear of the drive sprocket -probably a desparate attempt at cost saving in the late days of WW2. Yes the French used a few Panthers, I think regt. 605 in late 1945-early 46 but found they were more trouble than they were worth- although many French tanks inherited the Maybach motor and engine deck configuration -Arl 44, AMX 25,40 and 50. A few ex French Army Panthers ended up as exhibits- gate guards -I can remember one in a Parisian square as late as 1963- after the OAS uprising although I think it had gone by the 1968 revolution- probably back to Saumur. Steve

those are the funniest photos I've seen in along time:-D brilliant

Don't know if it's the only one, the one shown could be one that I think was on milweb in the last year or so. The ACRV 1974 is really little more than an over fed MTLB tractor prime mover-APC. I never saw the Bulford one. There is a fair bit of Soviet stuff around I came across various vehicles carrying Soviet armour coming and going from RAF Spadeadam on the A69 when I was working near Hexham 2 years ago - SA8 Gecko 6 wheel A/A system with a BT plate, SA6 straight flush radar unit and Shilka AAA, no photos as I haven't developed three hands as yet. Steve