steveo578

Hi Adrian I prefer to keep off the content of the previous posts on this subject, although this could have been amalgamated with "tiger 131 appeal 2010", which would have made all the previous views apparent and would avoid repeating posts.

It is interesting historically but I query whether it is a vital link in armour evolution- in effect a Tiger 1 is an evolution of the comparitively primitive Panzer 4- basically a P4 with obesity:-D it was not revolutionary like a Renault FT T34 or a Stalin 3 or half a dozen other designs and its historical place in the tank museums collection is not conditional on whether it is a runner. Steve

Oddly enough the Gaz 67 flag seems to be that of the comunist Party- it seems to lack the Hammer and Sickle that was on the Soviet Flag :confused: in the bad old days the party flag was only seen on party buildings.

Couple of the Conqueror ARV Mk1 first one showing the mud caked suspension caused by being on its side and the plywood silhoette in the distance which I suppose represents a T72. The second is the interior of the superstructure/winch house, filled with junk. Steve

Hi Bob Interesting pic, about the most battered Grizzly I've seen- surprised anything was salvageable Steve

Hi Tankie1rtr Depends which firing point -there are/were several mobile target ranges on Warcop and there could be still remains of a conq. on the range and probably are still small bits/unidentified hull remains around just as there are still the remains of line of Churchills in the middle of the site, anywhere reasonably accessable was regularly cleared of scrap and most of the active heavy targets are Chieftains. Back in 1992 the only Conqueror I saw was the very badly knocked about Conqueror ARV Mk1 (shown in earlier posts) which was in the vicinity of the rifle ranges on the west of the site near high Lane (the semi-public road between the A66 and Hylton), it was a long stop for 30mm A/P Scimitar firing from positions south of the lane. About a year prior to it had been set up on its side with it floor plates as a large target, by 2000 it had been cleared away. Steve

Yes, it was a cause for concern for the A Bomb operations from tinian that the heavily loaded aircraft would blow an engine on take off, hence the development of the B29c and D and B50 and the need at great cost to take Iwo-Jima as a short stop for aircraft unable to return to Tinian or Guam My point that if B29s had been used in Europe they would probably be used at high attitude was due to effective A/A and interceptors, the B29 had been designed to overfly contemporary 8.8cm FlaK 18 at in excess of 9000meter effective firing ceiling and at that altitude it would take 10 minutes for even a ME262 to climb to that altitiude by which time the 350mph of the B29 would distance itself. In Japan by mid 1945 air defence was declining rapidly -by August even low altitude aircraft such as RB32 could operate with relative impunity.

I tend to agree. The problem I have with the copy is that had CMV titled the article as an appeal for funds as opposed to presenting it as news I doubt any-one would have re-acted adversely, it could be compared to an extent to last years controversy between the Disasters Emergency Committee and the BBC over the appeal on the Gaza crisis. A charity (and of course the Tank Museum is one) should never generate copy that could be misconstrued as news and more importantly magazines/forums and other media organisations should not allow them to do so, it is damaging to both parties. Steve

Fair point, however it probably would have meant reduced crew losses especially if used as originally configured at high altitude. If I remember correctly the B29 was primiarly designed to be used in ETO as a long range atlantic bomber but obviously at that range -New York-Hamburg and back would have reduced to the bomb load to a B17. One reason for its inital use in SEATO was it ability to carry freight "over the hump" across the himalyias from India to China. Steve

I looked at this one in 1992,- there was some demand for an intact idle at that time practically everything on it had been bent by A/P and HESH rounds, the idler was seized solid and I suspect the bogie was distorted by hits which split the lower hull just forward of the bogie. Apart from that it was pulled down from high ground and abandoned in bogy ground. The other two M10s further east weren't any better, but its a miracle they lasted so long. I see Warcops weather is true to form:-D Steve

I'm surprised it still has a co-drivers hatch on it.

Hi Eddy if you could restore/prserve the Cent shown in post #88 22-04-10 I'd be mega impressed;). The Catterick bods are far more interested in preserving ancient hedge rows on Feldom at the moment to bother with sorting out the problem of no longer active targets despite the fact that by failing to remove redundant targets imperil the very SSIs that presently they are fixated. Steve

Specifically the Bren Gun carrier "Carrier, Bren, No2 Mk1 & 2" was designed to carry platoon heavy weapons, that is Bren and Boys A/T rifle,at a scale of 10 per Battalion. The Bren No2 replaced the "Carrier,Machine Gun, No2, Mk1" which was originally designed to carry the Vickers Machine Gun (ie company level weapon). As such the Bren never carried an infantry squad but would be used for flank protection and local recce. The similar Carrier,scout, Mk1 (the apparent difference between them was a mirror image rear superstructure), was intend to act as recce (scout) for mechanised cavalry units hence it was fittted with a W/T set from the outset. There was also a specific Carrier Armoured OP No1,Mk1 which in addition to the No11 W/T had various cable telephony and no facility for the M/G in the hull front. As to carrying an infantry squad for mechanised warfare (the role of the Warrior in modern warfare) there was a Carrier Cavalry, Mk1 which carried a rifle squad into battle, only 50 were ordered and it is debatable whether all were completed, (there is a photo of it on the Dragon thread). By 1940 it was realised that the luxury of having the Bren,Scout, OP and Cavalry along with various proposed Dragon prime mover replacement and other proposed uses, it was decided to build one standard model called the Universal Carrier. The 3 inch mortar carrier did not exist until 1942 hence was never part of the official Bren No2 Mk1-2 set up. The MMG (Vickers) was re-introduced on the Universal as Carrier Medium Machine gun No1 in 1943. Steve

Isn't the use of of a noxious chemical like Irn Bru against arms limitation treaty?:-D

Probably a matter of convergence of design -there is quite a bit of MIG aircraft style in there too, although in the past BAE- have had connections with PRC as did Vickers before they merged -notably the reworking of the 531 series APCs. The BBC thing was quite a PR job though- I can't see any other reason in designing a multi-role combat aircraft other than to dominate the aerial battlefield:nut:

Your photo shows the arabic numerals ٨ and ٩ which is 8 and 9 in Western numerals the lower number are 3 and 1. Is there any sign of an Arm of Service box (Red / blue) behind the numbers Steve

It's the forward control version of the alvis Tactica dating from 1989- remember anything Alvis or alvis Vickers is now BAE systems,

I think I can eliminate both Jordan, Abu Dhabi and possbly the Lebanon Jordanian AFVs have a ID Plate with the Arabic script for Army in the upper half and Arabic(indian) style five digit number beneath. Abu Dhabi (Emirates) vehicles have a similar plate with the Arabic script for Defence Force (I think) in the upper portrion and a number in Arabic(indian) script beneath. additionally most Emirates vehicles are two tone sand and earth rather than the standard British sand over bronze green Lebanon Armoured Cars during the Civil War (1976) had a black number plate with large arabic (indian) numbers in the centre -generally about 5 digits and arabic script in smaller font above and below the number -which I cannot decpiher. None of these nations had western numbers in addition -probably a case of "if I run you down you shouldn't be be in my country". steve

In addition it was used by Barrain(nk) Lebanon (nk) Libya (100) the Emirates(125) Sudan(50) Oman(36) Qatar(30) and Tunisia(20). Most of those in Emirates and smaller gulf states have been in reserve for some time and therefore may have been sold. all tend to use the standard dual arabic/western script, probably not a lot of help. Steve

Old gauges (moving coil meters) on electrical equipment -even on old radio sets often have luminous painted dials which has lost its ability to glow due to the radioactive metal base continuing to decay -oxidising to black. Most of these moving coil meters were painted with thorium and while it will not cause injury by iradiation, the material itself is dangerous if swallowed or inhailed- even in minute quantities and this can happen if the paint is scraped off. It's one of the reasons why old aircraft used as targets have the instrument panels stripped out- there are several sites in the UK near old ROF factories where air frames were scrapped after WW2 that have radioactive contamination because instrument panels were burnt in bulk to retrieve aluminium. With regard to the components shown in the pics, it is possible that these are calibration devices for testing equipment including gigercounters but more commonally testing medical/dental x ray equipment, they are sometimes inaccurately called Diodes. If so they are generally pretty safe as technicians handle them in numbers without ill effects, however if in doubt get expert advice, in the UK I would think the fire service would be the first place to get advice. Steve

I think this subject has been covered before in dated from 9-1-10 to 25-1-10, -now around page 5 I think. I have not read what was said in CMV but in the past it has been noted for a certain degree of lax editiorial control- even sensational copy. I am fairly certain if the above mentioned thread is read in particular what John Pearson contributed a fairer picture of the problems with the Bovington Tiger 1 will be aparent. I have now read the article in the current CMV and I get the distinct impresion the CMV is a victim of lack of editorial control- or more likely being fluffed by either or both of the publicists involved with the matter, ie Dan Snows TV company or Tank Museums publicity and corporate department. Perhaps editors should make it apparent who initiated the article in question, which at least would allow the reader to take an informed viewpoint of the sensationalism of an article. Steve

Ex jordanian Army US built M52 105mm SPG -same design stable as the M44 155m SPGs used by the British Army, the last pic for example shows a hotchkss H39 , a Centaur/Cromwell still with a rather unconvincing main armament, a Lt tank Mk6 (ex Egyptian) a Renault R35 (probably ex Syrian) a staghound and a marmon herrington Mk4 (probably ex Jordanian) and a universal carrier. Hidden by the Cromwell is a Sandwich truck and to the extreme right is a M3 scout armoured car conversion- similar to the type commanded in the 1948 war by Hiam Bar Lev -later Minister of Defence and the guy the Bar Lev defence line was named. I'll let some-one else play spot the tank;) Steve

That would be an exception rather than the rule, most bunker turrets have the remains of a hull beneath them whether in the Netherlands in the 1950s or Bulgaria or Russia at the same time because without the hull roof alot of expense would have to be made to make a tie down the turret, especially if the original weapon is retained- requiring good structural strength to absorb recoil. It would also be quite an effort to cut the roof plate from cast hull (Ram tanks) or cast/welded Sherman hull. In the Waterline bunkers the buried hull was part of a formalised design. In WW2 few ex french turrets such as FT17 and R35 were mounted on manufactured plates, in other cases for example Pz 35t and 38t turrets were mounted after the roof plate (riveted construction) was unshipped from the hull.

XS650 I've never heard of one in civilian private or corporate (film prop supply) ownership, but not impossible there is alot of stuff squirrled away out there. If the location is Shrivenham then it could be from their private collecton, but it certainly never appeared in the the public museums such as Bovington. If you look at www.chars-francais.net the 3 photos by P. Marsillas show a derelict tank in 1980,which is a period when civilian ownership became popular, that had been converted to a drivers training tank about to be used as a target. There were approx 150 built/converted they were used in the later stages of the Algerian War, . The reason for its conversion was to give a more habitable tank for counter insergency use than the AMX 13 FL11 short barrel 75mm type. it weighed the same as a standard AMX 13 -15tons. S

Very impressive, 8 t34s and most if not all seem to be of WW2 manufcacture -albeit with 1960s rebuild trackwork, imagine a British or US parade with 8 comets or 8 M4s- not going to happen:-( Steve