11th Armoured

There's more info on them here: https://enfield-stuff.com/Pages/3-oilers/3-2_field_guide.html

I think a great many things have gone 'unnoticed' in Switzerland for quite some time...

Right from the very start, this whole tale seemed to me to be the result of a kid with an over-active imagination who REALLY loved (& still misses...) his dad, but unfortunately either mis-remembered the details of the stories he'd been told, or didn't have the capacity at a young age to determine whether his old man was spinning a yarn or not. Sadly, as the kid grew up, it became an obsession & no amount of facts, logic or common sense will now change a belief that has been held, literally, for a lifetime.

I found this quite an informative primer on how Ukraine organises its mechanised infantry & it also (albeit briefly) mentions specific units that have been issued western-made vehicles (not Spartans, however):

Fantastic news! 👍

Incredible stuff - brilliant work!

Fingers crossed that something good comes out of it - it seems a very cruel kick in the tender bits for the mechanical problems to take the shine off all the brilliant work you've done so far on the restoration 🤞

If it's the same fella, I think he's one of the organisers of the Yorkshire Wartime Experience. If it IS the same chap, then there's a contact number for him on their webpage: https://www.yorkshirewartime.co.uk/contacts

There was quite a bit of footage of Spartans being used during the recent Kharkiv offensive, together with other western-supplied APCs. Not the perhaps expected mish-mash of types, either - one unit with a whole column of Spartans, another with M113s, and yet another with Dutch YPR-765s, suggesting they were fresh formations.

Outstanding!

There's a set described here as part of a sale listing - reckons it's a naval sight for a 3½" gun. I reckon the numbers under the broad arrow might give you the date of manufacture (as I think 'oats and barley' was also alluding to). http://www.byswordandmusket.co.uk/militaria/ross-london-ww2-3-12-binocular-sight/

Now THAT'S a good idea - I haven't seen those before, I must admit, so thank you for the hint! 👍

I think it's debatable whether that's the same Spitfire that crashed on the beach, however...

I've always found this a useful site to get an idea of what's out there, one way or another: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html

If you open the link using the Google Chrome browser, it should offer to translate it for you 👍

Well, I never knew that the 'A' in APCR & APDS ammunition stood for THAT! 🤣

Which then brings up a question... if the markings DO indicate a British Jeep, why was it part of a post-war US rebuild programme? If all the other signs point to it being a US Esslingen rebuild, then I'd think that the markings are probably a red-herring & it's a former US vehicle 'prettied-up' by a subsequent owner. OR they are Belgian markings & it's a US Jeep that was passed into Belgian hands (the 'Normal' & 'Occulte' plates on the dash are in French, after all (as well as being French words absorbed into English))... All very intriguing 😀

While I agree with the red/blue being RA & an upper white bar denoting a Corps level formation, the numbering on arm of service signs doesn't usually represent the actual identity of the unit (I think the markings were actually in part designed to preserve the anonymity of units for security purposes). '88' on a red/blue background for example would have been a marking used by a number of different divisional formations, in the same way that '50' on a red square was a ubiquitous marking across many formations. In the case of '88' on red/blue, from this source (produced by a member of the forum, I believe) it appears to denote an RA field regiment in an infantry division in the Middle East between 1941 and 1943 (and potentially into Italy after that): https://uktankmarkings.wordpress.com/tactical-markings/aos-markings-infantry/ That said, there's something 'not right' to the style of the marking on the Jeep to my eye...

All the contemporary images I've seen seem to show them painted in a single colour, which given the time period (from the Lovett info) would suggest 'olive drab' (whatever particular shade that was in 1918). The museum exhibits are in that colour as well.

I can't remember where I found this now, but this webpage probably covers most of the bases. Apart from the various camouflage schemes adopted by the US towards the end of the First World War, it does also (briefly) mention the monotone colours in use prior to the war/prior to the adoption of camouflage: on p. 256 of the first document (Journal of the United States Artillery), it mentions, "...the usual Olive Drab Color"; and on p. 7 of the second document (Painting Instruction for Camouflaging of Ordnance Vehicles), under the heading 'Monotones used before 1914', it mentions, "...painting the vehicle with a monotone, battleship gray or olive drab". https://www.lovettartillery.com/US_Three_Color_Pattern_FA.html

Should be fairly easy to say whether the RN ever lost a ship in that area & if so when. There seem to have been quite a number of civilian vessels fitted with copper hull sheathing though, so I'd say it might be more likely to be one of those, tbh.

Yep - can't have the audience getting too appreciative, makes them go all giddy & stuff... 😂

You should seriously consider writing spy novels...

The Environment Agency are just one of the consultees in any planning application - in the case of a proposed residential redevelopment of a brown-field site, their involvement may go a bit further than for Joe Bloggs sticking up a new conservatory, but they usually simply offer an opinion on the potential impact of a development upon the natural environment. This is generally in terms of flooding, etc., but possibly in terms of disposal of contaminated soils if they've been identified by pre-development sampling. They do not have the deciding vote on anything in my experience & are regularly overruled by planners (e.g., in the case of developments that have been given permission on flood plains & the like). And yes, seeing what to us is interesting history being dug up would be something to look forward to, but to the developers & a great number of people in society at large, it's just a load of scrap, sadly. Regarding your final paragraph, this is all the more reason for the developers & planners to be upfront about all of this. The last thing they want are surprises that lead to hold-ups to their programme - groundworkers & brickies stood around twiddling their thumbs costs money. So your hints at secrecy & underhand schemes makes no sense at all - sorry.

So, what are you saying now - they're going to remove the 'tanks' in secret, if they can get away with it? And presumably scrap them in secret as well? And presumably backfill the resulting bloody great 'ole in secret so no-one asks awkward questions about why there's suddenly a bloody great 'ole there now? 🤔 If they're going to dig them out anyway, and scrap or sell them anyway, then why, pray tell, aren't they just being upfront about it? Having a load of scrap metal buried on your site isn't going to interfere with planning consent - it's simply ground contamination, nothing more, nothing less. Developers & builders deal with this sort of thing day in, day out - there's no statutory protection for scrap, tanks or otherwise, I'm afraid to say...