steveo578

Hi Eddy Nice WOT Steve

In fact the 1st photo is the Dingo Hector which actually was the only Scout Car to clear the beach onto the promenade it returned to the beach being unable to advance into the town, it was then blown up by a mortar bomb or shell and flipped 360degrees throwing its crew clear. As to the matter of Chert/shingle - I wonder if this jackanory will ever end, 15 (out of 29) Churchills (and the Daimler Hector) managed to leave the beach and drove around the esplanade-promenade area (the hard standing) until out of ammunition, those that had not been knocked out returned to the beach to assist in protecting the pinned down infantry and engineers in the hope of re-embarkation- which never came. Additionally 4 of the 7 Churchills that were towing a Daimler Scout Car failed to clear the beach -I wonder why:shocked: but contrary to the standard story many of the track breakages attributed to chert- shingle could well be due to gunfire this can almost certainly be said of Backer, Belicose, and Calgary. It is significant that many of the track breakages were of the tracks that was facing the direction of fire at the time of the track failure. Steve

must be bad if you've got to get some-one to lean against it to hold it together:-D

While not wanting to get holier than thou imo there isn't much difference "by your acts you will be known". When I first got involved with our interest I was fortunate to be told in a long phone call who was naughty- or nice and while cryptic the information given was spot on. Doesn't mean I would ignore those who practices were ify I'm just more aware. Steve

I was thinking that most british P/T boats would be types like Thornycofts (hopefully with British motors) I wouldn't have thought many US types such as Elcos and Higgins would be around- did the British/French receive any by Lend Lease I suppose it is possible PTGB could have been around as landing craft control vessels.

I endorse both Adrians and Tony Bs conclusion. Almost in every sub group there are "murky people" but generally speaking the good almost always outnumbers the bad generally by at least 10 to 1, but anyway the murky b****rs won't come to your notice as they will not extend assistance. Steve

Thanks for the clarification -probably would lead to too many sub forums but perhaps there should be a sticky post to help out new owners with this sort of information. Steve

Don't know if it's the same piece of tin but the top edge of the pulpit was cut off. I've played with other photos -zooming in, lightening, darkening, etc and get the impression it could be CT29718 it will be interesting to see if anything turns up under the paint to confirm this. Steve

It would take more than bare hands to lift that lump out:-) wonder how it got there.

Nop can't make it out.:-(

looks like a 4M2500 W8 as fitted to Elco and Higgins pt boats although only half seems to be visible -I don't think they made a half engine version:-D.

It is description of U/Cs being a light AFV makes people think they are actually light weight:-D:-D, but then again consider the Churchill 20 odd kilos per link -and thats for the light track:shocked: I take it there were no signs of any T numbers on the U/C then? Steve

I'd imagine it has something to do with shortening track that has stretched, they loose up 8 or so links through there life and it would not be possible as a field repair to remove the pin domed at both ends, also they do have a tendency to shed in service and two or three easily split sections might make putting them back on. Steve

The Red Army trawled workers from factories, this included women workers, therefore many of these workers had acquired skills which would be helpful to the battalion -probably givng them a better chance of survival. Many repair zavod expected surviving crews to carry out repairs on their tanks if possible and as Alien FTM mentioned at Stalingrad some tanks were used by workers straight off the production line. The written and photographic evidence shows virtually any operative T34 and tractors at STZ were taken out Stalingrad almost as soon as the Germans turned up, one photo shows T34s and STZ tractors awaiting shipment with extemporised A/T defence gates in the foreground. However a few were finished by workers after evacuation of the factory to Tankograd in the Urals, (most of the tooling had been removed too) and pressed service -and no doubt were destroyed in short order. There is movie footage of a knocked out T34 which is obviously the source of the story that T34s were sent into battle unpainted - it is bright steel colour, but it is most likely this occurance was a one off. The 4gal petrol can used in the desert was only meant for single usage and it is possible that multiple usage was the real cause of their failure, being returned empty meant it was easily damaged in transport. I'm not 100% convinced with regard to the US Army having combat and maintenance crews in WW2 -sounds a bit of a Veterns story. Mos 19 or whatever the Mos number was in WW2 requires crews to be competant in maintenance and repair capablities up to the level of artificers, similar to their British opposite numbers. It was proposed at various times during WW2 and often post war (especially when nuclear powered tanks were proposed:shocked:) to have dual crews but shortages of trained crews in WW2 and costs post war certainly prevented that, in fact at various times in ETO infantry were transfered to US armour regiments and this may account for some stories of relativley poorly skilled crews. Many were returned to the infantry when there was a shortage of riflemen after the Hurtengen forest operations, there was even a pay bounty to do so.

I suppose this is for the Loyd Carrier, it would depend when it was first built.- resprays not withstanding. First wartime base colour was "Mid Bronze Green" to BS381 0f 1930. and that was the standard base colour until November 1941 when Khaki Brown later classified as Khaki-Brown SCC No.2. was issued. Khaki Brown SCC No.4 was an alternative to SCC No2 during later 1942-43 but both in use depends on the factory and availablity. Khaki Green SCC No15 was authorized as base colour from early 1944 and was also refered to a Olive Drab as Adrian has already said. Ordering the paint already -that optimism for you:cool2: Steve

If I may I will reply to this section first. The uniforms act (see my post in Why do you wear military uniforms? page 2 of 29-12-2009 ) forbids a person wearing a uniform of HMF for the purposes of impersonation -it does not prevent wearing of HMF uniforms in re-enactments, stage plays etc i.e. any reasonable and legitimate purpose, even to the extent that guidelines by the CPS (and there is a CPS officer in almost every Police stations custodial suit) would frown upon an officer detaining for example a builder, student or tramp-whatever found wearing an article of British military uniform- it is generally the act of attempting to gain some form of "advantage" generally pecuniary that makes the offence. Specifically a Napoleonic war naval admirals uniform would not even come under the jurisdiction of the 1894 Act as in 1805 there were no standard uniforms for that rank (Nelson a well known self publicist and fashion peacock was notorious for his blinged up garb). The 1894 act exists to prevent the impersonating of a current mode of garb - but obviously will include abuses such as wearing medals improperly -"to the annoyance or distress of the public" as in the recent November 2009 case, which was dealt with as a public order offence. Turning out as a 19thC Admiral might upset "Admiral Car Insurance" but it's not going to fool anyone into thinking that you are a commander of a current naval battle group.:nut: No relevance it’s 205 years at least since Nelson commissioned his taylor to cut his threads, couturiers, for example Carolina Herrera enjoy the standard 50/70years after death coverage under copyright. An officer’s uniform despite being paid for by the officer is worn at the pleasure of Her Majesty the Queen under the terms of his/her commission and under warrant by enlisted men. As I said in my post #25 yesterday unless the uniform of Nelson at NMM is covered by a special act of parliament such as a Letter Patent there can be no breach of copyright as copyright does not exist, in George III time it was much easier to obtain such a Act of Parliament, but as the NMM wasn't even constituted until just prior to WW2 as it was opened by Her Majesty the then The Princess Elizabeth- one of her first official functions, an act (Letters Patent) dating back to George III would not exist for NMM but could exist for another organisation. As to whether a car or tank can fall under copyright or more to the point whether an individual museum can claim a copyright is very debatable and as I said previous my opinion has no more validity than anyone else’s -only a Judge or Commissioner can give a ruling- but this is my opinion. Copyright Various conventions Berne 1888 and Vienna 1956 apply. Copyright originates through intellectual work -for example writing, artworks, music etc it is the right of the originator of the work and need not be registered, its publication is proof enough, it lasts for the life time of the originator and persists for 50years (70years since 1987 and in the case of Peter Pan perpetually -1988 Callaghan Act, which is a wholly exceptional case). An author (originator) of a work may sell, gift or dispose it to a 3rd party, however an orphaned work (i.e. originator dead no next of kin) cannot be "scooped up" by a 3rd party. Patents. Tanks have been patented in the past -for example our old friends at Vickers did this with commercial designs. Patent runs for a determined period -in the 1st instance 20years with an option for limited renewal thereafter. It has to be registered each year or it lapses and another can step in and "scoop up" the rights within a certain criteria and time period- you cannot trawl around looking for long lapsed patents that is in effect in the public domain in the hope of wringing fees out of a manufacturer. Patents can be sold disposed or abandoned like any other type of property. The renewal is the reason why a design of a commercial weapon such as the recently mentioned 10-5inch Armstrong guns in Norway, always date to the Ist January of a given year. The problem with trying to claim copyright on a tank would be the complexity of the item. A Vickers commercial tank for example could have components from other parties- motor by Ford, gear box using Wilson patents, weapons, mounts and TMs from RGF -possibly under Crown Copyright (similar but different time parameters and generally covers only written works including the king James bible) brakes perhaps by Bendix and suspension Horstmann even the armoured plate can be covered by rights. Above all the purchase of an item made under copyright or patent does not confer rights to 3rd parties -for example, buying a Cd or software does not give you copyright. Both Copyright and Patents can be gifted into the public domain -biggest example probably of all time Tim Berners-Lee, the originator of the internet did this. Trade marks and Image rights What some museums attempt to do is to claim spurious image rights. Image rights are linked to Trade Marks which have to be specifically registered and are perpetual rights if the trade mark is used -if lapsed or abandoned for more than 5 years it is regarded as reasonable for a 3rd party to re-resister it although generic terms in common usage may not be re-registered, hence the continuous spats between US and EU systems over the term JEEP (which I think has to be written in a particular script in the EU to qualify). An example of a TM is the term "Tank Museum". Image rights; Madonna, Paris Hilton, Princess Diana, Ferrari and Churchill are all registered TM, let's ignore the first three (please:-() Ferrari is covered by image TM rights (for the black stallion) and as the originator of the mark and titular designer of the cars Enzo Ferrari died in 1988 the styling is still covered by copyright as will be active patents if any, so you can't set up a production line producing 250s or whatever -unless Ferrari OKs it:shocked:, in the US (but less so in EU) even a scale model impinges on this, hence it was many years before a CH47 was produced as a kit as Boeing objected. The Churchill family are quite protective of the name of W.S. Churchill and without a doubt that annoying nodding dog is a nice little earner- however they seem quite sensible with regard to other matters I doubt historical usage of the image incur a rights payment -certainly they haven't asked me for a payment for using the name on pics of A22s I have published. So finally if a museum wants to prevent images of their treasured tank whatever being published they must make it plain and undisputable that photography is not allowed or that permitted photographs are allowed only for private use and –that the rules are displayed in such a way that no reasonable person could not see and understand the prohibition or restrictions, so no small print:shocked: and the prohibition and restriction only apply within enclosed premisses owned or leased by the organistation and that reasonable steps are taken with regard to privacy to prevent photographing through fences into open yards etc. Steve

Allan Please advise what type of uniform you refer to -is this unifrom one that has recently been designed for use by NMM Nelson or is it like that worn by Chelsea Pensioners and other Crown/military uniforms covered by a Letter of Patent -ie a form of Crown Copyright- rights reserved in perpetuity (prior the 1988), in other words a design protected by Act of Parliament -after all prior to Sir Robert Peels reforms impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner was a capital offence. :-D Steve

mcspool Hi hanno thanks for that info, it's been a question I wondered about for a while as it would have increased the number of T16 produced substancially- there still seems a lot more produced than is apparent from their distribution. Steve

The property (car/tank) is not copyright. If on what is effect private property (ie property not owned by you) you may not photogrph if it is expressly forbidden and even if it is permited the owner of property has a right to ask not to publish photos, however the only right to enforce this is through the court, dare you take the risk, on the other hand does the property owner risk a similar financial cost for an unsuccessful prosecution but you can be up against a private individual who is rich and no doubt has legal insurance for just such a situation -that probably doesn't apply to museum and other corporate organisations as the legal insurance is rather prohibitive for organisations. Unless the owner of the property commisions you to take photographs and you recind, waive or sign over your interlectual rights the owner does not have any copyright over the photos. I know of a number of people in the historic vehicle game both private and involved with museums who believe their "rights protection" on their property extends to when it is on the public highway or on private land where the land owner has no policy, it doesn't. Steve

If you're asked to leave and refuse and the police get involved they can a). Issue a fixed penalty for disorder, £60 to £100 depending on which force area. b). Summons you to appear at a magistrates court where even if no finding is made (the most likely result) you could still be "bound over". so it's best to leave, however you would certainly be entitled to demand (not ask) for a ticket refund, if done in a loud voice they will be glad to get rid of you:-). Steve

Yep it's a Focke Wulf FW61 and a helicopter:-D An Autogyro depends on a free rotating rotary lift wing which provides lift by airflow over the rotating wing during the forward motion of the aircraft. The classic example was the AVRoe licence built version of the Cierva Autogiro C30 A as the AVRO Rota Mk1. The autogyro in German service you are probably thinking of is the Focke- Achgelis FA 330 Bachstelze -wagtail which was to be used by the navy as a sophisticated observation kite by U Boats. The FW61 is a true helicopter (Louis Breguet system) having two counter rotating driven rotary wings driven by two rather long drive shafts from the radial engine (the fuslarge was a lift from a FW44 trainer) the nose propellers only function was to cool the radial engine. This led to FA 223 Drache which would have gone into full production in mid 1942 had the allies not bombed out the factory. Only about 5 were finished but they saw some service, 2 in semi civilian/trials role out of Gatow-Berlin and the other 3 in military service for transport in Bavaria. On surrender 1 was destroyed by its crew 1 went to US and the other came to UK where it crashed when the drive shaft to one rotar broke. Steve

Good synopsis Lee, however until such a matter is put before a Judge/Commisioner of suitable rank and learnedness Jonathan Rayner James QC opinion is just that -nothing more or less and dare I say it, not of much more utility than the opinion of the man on the Clapham omibus (slight misquote of Lord Denning late Master of the Rolls). Unfortunately in the UK and EU jurisdiction copyright law is currently bollocks, enforcement of copyright with regard to art works/photogrpahy is difficult even if said art work is registered and unfortunately there are many registration organisations-business (with snappy names) who are quite willing to "fleece" the hapless interlectual property owner -but are very unlikely to attempt to enforce interlectual property rights. You might as well try to nail custard to a wall. As to technical and security matters again most is rubbish, most modern security cameras and fire system are unlikely to be disturbed by flash photography unless it is of the level only seen when Paris Hilton turns up at an event. For an anti crime point of view, theft to order is done by very skilled fellons, banning granny cams will not stop it. On the other hand fabrics, paintings (particularly the modern stuff) and manuscripts may be harmed by bright light,however it is debatable whether the >100ths of a second exposure of a flash could effectively damage it- it is continuious lighting that does for it-even subdued lighting. The most damaging consquences for fabrics etc is exposure to moisture - the breath of the visitors and staff. Again most of these rules are scams to get the hapless visitor or student to shell out for an often poorly produced facsimile often at inflated prices. In my none legal opinion, if a museum refuses to allow photography or worse does not allow you to make notes do not support them (walk away) and make sure you inform your friends and colleagues in forums such as this of the matter of fact- I cannot be more emphatic -they nearly all receive monies you have paid in taxes in so called educational grants and reduced L/A property taxes, although all will make out that they receive no Local Authority, Government or EU support. In the words of that great human rights guru -Aurthur Dent -"lets see who rusts first".:-D Steve

Hi Eddy With no disrespect to any vetern, outside the user arm of service most army personel have the attitude towards tanks tracked SPGs and carriers of "its green and has tracks -it's a tank." I am fairly certain my description of the designation system of U/Cs is correct -the same system was used in Loyd carriers too- it is a particularly cumbersome system -the curse of the demented penpusher again, we can only be glad he wasn't a first division civil servant or no doubt the designations would be in Latin:nut:- however until Eddy finds a T or CT number or a DND (which may define it as a home Canadian service vehicle) no one can be sure- although it was found in Canada that doesn't mean it was born there- it could be British. Just to confuse things further there were 5714 examples of "Universal Carriers" built by War Supplies Ltd U.S.A. around the time that 13000 odd T16 Universals were built at Ford Somerville Mas. USA. Can anyone confirm the War Supplies vehicles were actually T16s or were these standard U/Cs being built until the T16 contract could start- the contract for T16 was slow to start at Somerville. Steve

I was under the impression that the designations No1, No2 and No3 refered to the national origin of the Ford multinational motors 221 ci. used in their manufacture No1 = British manufacture -irrespective of output 65bhp and 85bhp. No2 = U.S manufactured. No2 = GAEA and No2A equiped with a GAE motor. (UK manufactured U/Cs) No3 = Canadian manufacture. The * star in the carrier designation refered to the complete vehicle. While some No1 (British engined Universals) had 65bhp rating later models had 85bhp motors and as the No1 designation continued into No1 MkII and No1 MkIIIw -which would not have happened if the No1 refered only to 65bhp power unit. The only 95bhp 239ci units fitted in UCs were those built as 2pdr equiped SPGs and of course Windsors and 95bhp Ford Mercury GAU fitted to T16s. Steve

The Belgians used an interesting Loyd Carrier called the CATI which was a SPG A/T gun using a low pressure 90mm tube on a 6pdr A/t gun breach and recuporator built by the Belgian firm Mecar. See forum.valka.cz/.../BEL-Loyd-90-mm-CATI/p/35831