Guest matt Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Hi, Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on what exactly makes a military vehicle "historic"? Does it depend on the type or where a specific vehicle has been? Is an M4 Sherman any more historic than a pushbike used by a serviceman? If you take two identical vehicles(from any country or era) and the only difference between the two is one has seen service with a known unit during a known period,while the other sat in store as reserve stock,which is the more historic? No doubt the one which has seen service will be in a "well used" condition while the other will be in near perfect condition,but does condition effect how historically important a vehicle is? I know what my views are but I'm interested to hear other views on the subject! Thanks, Matt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 My thoughts - FWTW - are if it's been issued to an Armed Forces branch (irrespective of nationality) and is no longer in active service then it's a Historic Military vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodge Deep Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 If it pittles oil & grease everywhere, is slow, noisy, smelly crap on fuel and makes people go... "Oh cool... it's a... it's a... it's a... what is it?" Then its a hysterical military vehicle :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You've started something here Matt. It will all depend on the individual interpretation of "historic". I wouldn't consider my Iltis to be either classic or historic just yet - but no less so than an HMMWV or any numbers of late Land Rovers. But using Neil's yardstick it is historic because it is no longer in service. However, I like your original analogy about the Sherman and the bicycle. The answer is both in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomer Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I would tend to agree - if it's passed out of service then it's historic. As to the 'active service' rather than 'in the stores' aspect, this relates to your perception of the vehicles 'involvement' in history. Obviously a battle worn example carries more history than one that resided in stores, even though if you saw them both running the active service vehicle may only be say 50% of the original vehicle that saw combat, compared to the stores example being maybe 90% original or better. But that's another debate... :whistle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 When does history start to some people it was yeasterday or 2 minutes ago :? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 If you were to say vehicles over 25 years old are classic/historic then pretty much all of the armour currently in service with the British Army is classic/historic. The 432s were built in the 60s, CVRTs in the 70's and even the Warriors from the 80's are getting close now. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Coe Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 If you were to say vehicles over 25 years old are classic/historic then pretty much all of the armour currently in service with the British Army is classic/historic. The 432s were built in the 60s, CVRTs in the 70's and even the Warriors from the 80's are getting close now. Chris Ha ha, yes. There was a Dakota flying low over Colchester last week. We were all wondering if it was the MOD's latest purchase ~ a replacement for the Hercules ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomer Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Now you've made me question myself! If the Dak was put back in regular RAF service, would it then not be historic anymore? And does the fact the RAF Memorial Flight operate one already mean it isn't historic ? That's not 'regular service' though, so I reckon it shouldn't count.... Hmmm :? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I would tend to agree - if it's passed out of service then it's historic. As to the 'active service' rather than 'in the stores' aspect, this relates to your perception of the vehicles 'involvement' in history. Obviously a battle worn example carries more history than one that resided in stores, even though if you saw them both running the active service vehicle may only be say 50% of the original vehicle that saw combat, compared to the stores example being maybe 90% original or better. But that's another debate... :whistle: Zoomer...............you have completely thrown my brain on this one..........they all make sense but doesn't! :cry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomer Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Maybe I should just shut up... but 'll have one more go. :-D What I was trying to say was that a vehicle that saw active service may be seen as more historic than one that sat in stores (cos it has bullet holes for example) but in fact the one in stores may be the most 'original' and therefore a better representation of the vehicle. Does that make more sense? :dunno: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.