steveo578

They actually said thank you to Canada for the Valentine Tanks, personally I think they were making sure they had somewhere nice to flee to if things went bottom up.:-D They never did thank the U.S.A or the British just constant whining about a second front and lack of equipment. But then again we did offer them the Covenantor:wow: Steve

RE 01ZR14 try looking through T numbers at bovington.- It is possible that a T35- record card may have the ZR number annotated but it would require going through all the cards as the ZR regs are not in any logical order, this would probably require a visit as I doubt the Library staff would do that kind of search. If its a Tank I cannot understand how they can't find it.

Don't know about causing the cold war but it certainly could be classed as the impetious for almost all of the British, American and most other nations designs after Centurion and M47. Even French AMX50 and Swedish KRV were heavily influenced especially in the hull armour layout. It is a pity Bovington could not have made a deal for either a IS3M or a T10M or both, possibly a T44 and T34/76 as well. Could be perception because I got the opposite impression, allowing for the lack of hull floor ammo boxes I found the Stalin more comfortable, the amount of space in the turret for the comander and loader is quite tight in the T34/85 - the Czech post war T34/85 have shaping inside the turret at the midpoint to relieve the tightness. Although I never driven either I get the impression of a need to stoop or crouch forward in the T34 to see through the hatch either closed up or open. (I'm only 5'8-9" so it not that I'm oversize). The Stalin 3 having a bit more room with the inverted vee shape hull allowing a wider turret ring than either T34/85 or even th IS2M. I think you missed the logic of the layout, only when damaged does the advanced hull layout become apparent, the sides are thin stowage boxes with the main hull wall sloping downward to the lower hull walls, see photo 3,3 1 armour layout (very naval armour belt style) the green line shows the main armour. The triangular sections on the front plate that 'ping' cover the ends of the stowage boxes see photo 3,3 2 armour layout in red. The stowage boxes would have been valid against first generation RPG and bazookas. See also previous posted interior photos of the inverted vee area of hull Steve

misperception, I don't have a figure for IS2 production but probably as many as 4000 built by the end of the war in europe with about 50% loss rate! After WW2 they were refurbished as IS2M, see the IWM tank these and un modified IS2m were used by other warsaw pact forces, but not in great numbers, although the czechs had quite a few (some appear as scrap tanks in the movie Skřivánci na niti - Larks on a String a 1969 Czech film directed by Jiří Menzel released in 1990 after the fall of the Communist regime.). Most IS2M and IS3M went into reserve in the late 1950s and some IS2Ms were exported to China, in addition to IS2m, which had arrived shortly after the Maoist takeover and were actually seen as a major threat to the French forces in Indo-China hence deployment of M36B2s to I.C. Some IS2Ms went to Cuba and some can now be explored as coral reefs or diving targets for tourism. The reason why both tanks were only apparent in the nightmares of western inteligence was simply it was easier to train on medium tanks, less costly on infrastructure, logistics crews and the tanks themselves, the IS3 in particular had undergone two costly (as perceived by the Soviets) rebuilds since production was completed in 1946. As an aside with regard to unreliablity of the IS3M, a heavy tank company ran at full speed 350miles from Rumania to Buda-Pest to put down the Hungarian uprising in 1956 without loss (unfortunately)- a feat many Western Tanks would be hardly able to match. There was a political reason why all the heavy tanks (including the 8000 T10s) fell out of favour and were largely held in reserve, Khrushchev hated anything that reminded him of Stalin. Steve

IMI have been export marketing the 290mm rocket system to fit any suitable chassis since the early 1980s, however it may be possible that this system is in service but not listed as available. An example of Israeli secrecy in rocketry is the un-named mine clearance rocket, mounted on M3 H/T or 6 x6 trucks that was used during the latter stages of the 1973 war, but has rarely been acknowledged. It seems to work by FAB system producing a massive consistant overpresure over a large area. Steve

no problem steve

assume away that's why i gave a serious answer at 8.06am today there's nothing more humbling than having to quote yourself because people don't read it> steve

absolutely I think Britain too could have benefited from the soviet rough and ready precision only were necessary approach. The tank with turret reversed went the swiss museum of intruments of justice and then to Jacques Littlefield where it is presently, where the second tank (photo) went is anyones guess, there is a black hole which swallows afvs perhaps

i found this on a blog site a few weeks ago, I think it is on one the islands off Prince edwards island, possibly fixable it might have sufered with the sea air whereas a forestry one would not rot as readily. I was wrong in the location off PE island its location is actually Sable Island which is about 220km east of Halifax NS. the photo is from www.panoramio.com/photo/23813270

i actually prefer florence and the machine:-D

what was 01ZR14 in it final configuration -if it was a avre perhaps the re association might be able to help and if an arv perhaps the reme museum has record of it.

now now you shouldn't call me sir- you'll give me ideas above my station,:-D:-D a few other photos including drivers switches and although a bit blured the cicuit etched on the fuse cover there are also etched circuits on turret fuse/junction boxes. phots of the 2 budge Is3Ms taken 1988. steve

i always thought disrespecting vera lynn was grounds to be banned:-D steve

hi eddy the numbers of lend lease tanks suppliedto the russians were 4100+ m4a2s both 75 and 76 gun types 3800+ valentines from canada and UK 1600+ m3 light tanks 1400+ M3 mediums 1100 Matilda 2 2400+ Universals both canada and UK 3.340 M3 scout cars t48 M3 based tank destroyers 650 1000 M17 MMGC 100 M15a1 MGC M10 52 115 M31 arv churchill 301 tetrarch 20 valentine BL 25 In addition numberrs do not reflect lossed due to u boats. one third of all US studebacker U6S 2.5ton trucks were also trasfered along with a huge amount of othe war materials including several complete tyre manufacturing plant and at least 1 oil production plant. Even nuclear materials were transfered. they even received on loan a british revenge class battleship. they also received numbers of other vehicles as test examples seems odd that a matilda 2 component appeared in Poland, I would think most of thesoviet matildas were out of service by the time poland was "liberated" , possibly could have been a beute panzer or german training aid. the following link gives a good idea of the amount of stuff supplied to the soviet union in ww2 it is debatable whether they would have rallied against the german attack withou this aid- possibly would have to make peace similarily to what happened in 1918 and would have had to accept a loss of huge amounts of land european russia http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html steve

very nice, the d44 was a replacement for the zis 3 76mm gun although larger bore it is lighter than 17pdr and was probably designed as the bs3 100mm gun was too heavy in the a/t role. assuming all things are equal similar m/v and similar weight of shell the d44 is probably a more destructive than the 17pdr as standard shell has a bursting charge. steve

Israeli Military Industries 290MM X 4 rocket system 6-25 mile range, supposed to be in service from early 1990s but not much evidence, possibly not developed beyond user trials

It's already been posted on MV forum on 5-2-10 under the title Daimler, in hindsight it might have been less confusing if it had been in the British vehicle thread. Steve

Sorry I can't help you with any photos of this vessel however I need to make a correction, I think the LCS would be observing fall of shot from either LCT rocket vessels, LCT gun vessels or Navy vessels. DD tanks could not fire whilst afloat if that were attempted the DD would sink. having holed and collasped the screen. Steve

Bystander While I don't want to be accused of tautology, permit me to respond, the Alaska Class started off as a proposed Heavy Cruiser CA2 design by the navy general board, whatever the US navy classified them later, they specifically did not use the term battlecruiser. The proposed type carried out the same duties as a heavy cruiser that being carrier/task force escort from both surface cruiser attack and aircraft attack and detached duties hunting enemy cruisers. It is also significant that the type was primarily designed to over awe the Japanese 8inch cruisers of the Mongami and Tone class rather than as a response to the German Scharnhorst and the lack of armour protection reflected this. With regard to 8inch armament an alternate design for CA2 was proposed with 8inch guns that could be refitted with 12inch weapons if a future requirement demanded it. The term Large Cruiser and the naming for U.S. territories rather than either cities or states was to mark them out as a distinct type from either cruisers or Battleships. The point about comparatively armed battlecruisers (i.e. Fisher inspired designs) is they were products of their time, to call the Alaskas “battlecruisers” is in effect journalese –the class were termed “battlecruiser” by a recent generation of naval writers. To use these vessels as battlecruisers in a fast screening force of a battle fleet would have been as flawed as it would have been to use the heavy armoured cruisers in the same role. Something that to an extent happened with disastrous consequences when the 1st cruiser squadron was caught at Jutland with the loss of three 9.2in gun armed ships, Black Prince, Warrior and Defence. Some authorities (Fleming and Preston to name two) consider German battlecruisers as heading toward a distinct type of proto fast battleships almost from the outset, but particularly evident in Derfflinger class and the ultimate configuration in the Mackensen class, hence the great interest even fear for that vessel by the British to the point that the British specifically demanded it to be interned under the Armistice. Apart from the allegedly weak main armament Mackensen was very similar to the Fast battleship Queen Elizabeth design. Because of the Blucher fiasco, even the first German battlecruiser Von Der Tann benefited from study of the Invincibles and at the 1911 Coronation Review British experts were able to view Von Der Tann and were impressed by its balanced design compared to British Battlecruisers. On reflection I could be wrong when I said WW1 German battlecruiser armament was inconsistent with comparable capital ships, the Westfalen class and Von Der Tann were comparable having 11in/45 cal weapons, it would seem that it was because of financial constraints rather than deliberate policy that led to the use of the improved 11inch /50 cal guns in Moltke class and Seydlitz, consuming weapons already in production and possibly otherwise redundant when it was decided to fit the Helgolands with 12inch/50 cal to match British 12/45cal guns, which was mentioned as a concern to the German navy. Unlike the U.K which had 4 major large calibre gun manufactures the Germans had only one major and one smaller large calibre gun builders and this caused bottle necks especially when new designs were proposed. The 3 later 11inch armed ships were very well armoured and very close to a fast battleship design. The balance of weapons resumed with the Derfflinger class which were contemporaneous to the Konig class but again proportionately heavily armoured. The same thing happened with the 14inch guns in Mackensen, designed and built as 14in x 50 cal to outclass the British 13.5in, they were retained for cost reasons, but in the Bayern class the bore was increased to 15inch to nominally catch up to British designs (in fact the Germans would have had to go to 16inch to match the British weight for weight). They were shorter at 45 cal which implies the use of a similar chase, barbette and ancillary components of the original 14inch design. HMS Tiger was the fourth ship of the Lion Class and was contemporaneous to Iron Duke, its laying down was delayed as the Admiralty digested the superiority of the IJN Kongo being built at Barrow. There was no battlecruiser equivalent to the Queen Elizabeth class until the completion of Hood and even then the Admirals were initially classed as an improved QE class fast battleship. The original concept of the QE class was as a fast battleship which would make the battlecruiser obsolete. When Fisher returned to the Admiralty in August 1914 he resurrected the battlecruiser type in the shape of the Renown class, the comparable class of the Revenge class battleship and were originally the 6th and 7th ship of that class. I deliberately did not mention the British Post WW1 designs G3 and N3 were paper designs hence I specifically said the "final commissioned battlecruiser HMS hood". In actuality neither G3 or N3 contracts were confirmed, neither named beyond yard numbers and no keels were laid. Although both types were originally designed together–having the same hull form (which would make G3 without a doubt a fast battleship rather than a battlecruiser). Initially they may have had the same armament and the armament contracts for G3 were let as a 16inch x 9 gun design and were a prioritized to replace the 12inch armed battlecruisers (which even Brassleys had declared obsolete) to give a large calibre fast wing to the battle fleet- the QE having not lived up to their fast battleship reputation and were by 1919 classified as ship of the line. Unfortunately the 16inch Mk1 designed from US and latterly German gun research was flawed but contracts had already been let and by 1919 with the Japanese experimenting with a 19.1inch gun (again the British were aware) a new gun was required hence the proposed development of at least 3 additional weapons two in 16inch and one an 18/45cal Mk2 weapon (and even the existing 15/45cal was reconsidered), therefore the development of the alternative less technically stressed 18inch gun for N3 was more the result of an arms race which the British government could by its own admission barely afford. By early 1922 an increasingly desperate British Government took a political decision to abandon G3 and N3 shortly before signing the Washington Treaty. By then both projects were in trouble, even the gun design was falling behind schedule and it was expected that N3 would not be completed before at least 1930 hence it was becoming a generation away from G3. But really it is irrelevant the only thing that came out of all the paper work and game play by Britain at the Washington conference was two bazaar hybrid battleships which were built around the guns, barbettes and machinery planned for G3 mopping up at least some of the wasted taxpayers money. I specifically did not mention any French vessels as none have any bearing on the question, the French never built battlecruisers. The Dunkerque class were the first French battleships since the last of the Bretange class ship was completed in mid 1916. Bretange had 340mm 13.3in /45cal guns. Dunkerque (completed 1937) and Strasburg (completed 1939) were both fast battleships and fitted out with 330mm 13inch 50cal mle1931guns that were an advance in power over the Mle 1912. They were capable of 31 and 30 knot respectively and had 10 and 11inch armour belts. Dunkerque and Strasbourg could have seen off earlier Bretange class without any difficulties, they were designed to defeat contemporary German (Deutschland class and Scharnhorst class commerce raiders) and units of the Italian Fleet such as Andrea Dorio class. The Italians built the Vittorio Veneto Class specifically to counter the Dunkerque class. The larger Richelieu and Jean Bart with a main armament of 380mm 15inch/45 cal mle 1935 guns, was a poker game response to the new Italian vessels - such is the way of an arms race. Being an evolutionary improvement over the previous design it was not a case of the earlier design (Dunkerque) being a battlecruiser version. As ever an overly long reply,:cheesy: Steve

It was a fairly innovative design in particular the inverted pyramid shape of the hull and the development of the front hull of the later style IS2 into the advanced "pike style". It was not seriously underpowered both IS2 and 3 were in the same power/weight category as the much applauded Panther but in the Is3 case with far better armour layout and the automotive system was reasonably reliable albeit that the suspension had a fairly high rolling resistance, which made all the IS series slow but it was specifically a breakthrough tank and it did what was required. That joke was often said by West German troops with regard to the Chieftain, but would the same people want to go up against it in a Leo1? Even Churchill used the same joke about his namesake in 1941. Everyone entitled to their opinion, but IMO I can't see how anyone can draw a line at T62! The T54-55 was a far better tank than the T62 the U5-T of the T62 was better on paper than a D10-T but the dispersion was poor and the loading-firing cycle of a T62 was ridiculous for a modern weapon system and I cannot see how anyone can say a T62 is roomier than any other Soviet design if anything the large ammunition made life more cramped for the turret crew and more difficult for the loader added to the perpetual problem of the dangerous auto-eject system. The weakness for IS2 and 3 all Soviet tanks until T64 was poor ammunition stowage which was evident in the Mid East wars, when especially IS3 and T62s were found vulnerable to hits to the rear of the turret- in the case of T62 even a none penetrating hit could cause the stowed rounds to explode. Even the T64 and subsequent tanks have a poor reputation for catastrophic ammo explosions. There is a possibility that political and bureaucratic interference caused over hardening of the frontal armour on the IS3 in particular which led to brittle failures of armour plate. IS3M was not the final IS tank that was the T10, there were also a batch of IS4 which was a progression of IS2 toward a final form. The IS2M and 3M were rebuilds of existing tanks for reserve and export stock in the 1950s. The CMV article give me reservations, AFAIK the Israelis did not use IS3M except as OP-For training and Observation Posts in Sinai. There is film of one or two IS3M in the 1968 Independence Day parade. Many of the 72 IS3M reported captured included destroyed vehicles, many having lost their turrets after internal ammo explosions, many to tank gun fire but at least one to a rifle grenade fired into the open turret hatch. While it is possible that T54 motors were fitted to replace failed IS3M motors it would not give any automotive advantage V2 T of Is3M was 600hp whereas the T54-55 V54-55 were 520-580HP motors. Photos note the position of ammunition racks around turret, and the crude machining of the hull wall which seems to be to allow gun clearance at elevation when the turret is at 3 and 9 o'clock.

The problem with the memorial is a small anti- memorial cadre in Local Government in the Torcross area and the future of the memorial seems to regularily the subject of debate. I would recomend Channel Firing by Nigel Lewis. ISBN 10 0670823988 and The Invasion Before Normandy by Edwin P Hoyt. ISBN 0 7090 3266 8 There is also any good article in After the Battle Magazine No 45 I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Small, his single minded effort to bring this memorial to fruition had a toll on him which is reflected to an extent in his book. He was very highly regarded by veterans and their families who are the people who count in this matter.

Yes that's a PT76 but I can't recall a PT76 on Tank overhaul.:undecided:

I think the "bayonet" is a simple matock spike for breaking ground by putting the blunt end into the spade handle.

Really interesting -I cannot understand how the Local Authorities permit this to continue, as it could not be called a managed site.

Being officially old is nothing - being invisible to fit women is the real condemation:-(