woa2 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The AA gun looks like a wartime British 3.7" to me. The tank is a T34/85. One question - how do you tell the difference between a Wartime produced T34 and a Post-war made one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The AA gun looks like a wartime British 3.7" to me. The tank is a T34/85. One question - how do you tell the difference between a Wartime produced T34 and a Post-war made one? The easy one is to look at the glacis and toe plate join. Wartime tanks have a rounded edge and the post war production have a sharp edge such as this one. However, I can't believe the change coincides exactly with the end of the war! I suspect the rounded edge continued for some time and it is more likely that the post war production in other countries had the sharp edge. Or the sharp edge was introduced before the wars end and continued post war. I favour the former as it is a production difference. Having said that, more than one sharp nosed T34 owner has told me he is sure his is a wartime model. Could be though it may be rather like all the Jeeps around that landed on Omaha beach on D-Day....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I agree with you on the gun Robert, a few years ago a batch of these were refurbished by an engineering firm in N. Wales prior to export to Malta as far as I remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Paving slabs and carousel horses? :coffee: The Bloodhound would go nicley with the Rapier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 After all these years I am having a mental block on the Ferret. I am sure it was the Mark 4 that introduced Fox technology most noteably in the form of larger wheels and float screens, but I cannot for the life of me remember where that leaves the Mark 3. Perhaps the Mark 3 was the new-technology equivalent of the Mark 1 where the Mark 4 was the new-technology equivalent of the Mark 2? The Mark 5 took the new technology and replaced the MG turret with a Swingfire ATGM turret. From a distance it was not difficult to mistake a Ferret 5 for a Fox. Obviously the T34/85 is a no-brainer. And I agree with Bloodhound as the missile. It must be over 40 years since I owned a Corgi (Dinky?) metal Land Rover towing a Bloodhound on exactly the trailer shown here. I vaguely recall the missile may have had a soft red rubber pointy-end. And we thought Health and Safety was a modern curse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 I vaguely recall the missile may have had a soft red rubber pointy-end. And we thought Health and Safety was a modern curse? I doubt very much if the various dinky type matchstick firing artillery pieces I owned as a child would be allowed today. The prospect of some poor child being impaled on a matchstick doesn't bear thinking about. I don't know how we got away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Yes, it's a Mk 4. The Mk 3 never made it past the prototype stage. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 Thanks for your posts identifying this stuff. I found the gun the most appealing, what would have towed it ? Matador, Pioneer, Albion ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon8910 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Now there's a blast from the past. Definitely a Bloodhound Missile on a transportation / servicing stand, wfu from the RAF in 1991 and were all green by then , no longer white. If its not ex RAF then possibly originated from the Swiss airforce who had them until 2000ish, Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Heres Duxfords Bloodhound ! Picture found on internet ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think I'm right in saying (you're tell me if I'm not) that the shoulder mounted 'Stinger' anti aircraft missile can do much the same job as the 'Bloodhound' did in it's day. It's incredible how the technology has progressed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJj7kXVh9BQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 You are right mate ! The bloodhound is so big I think it could just swat a plane without an explosive warhead ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 It's very interesting, and I suppose very frightening, to learn of further miniaturization in future weaponry. I was reading recently about developments with tiny flying, armed robots. I'm sure, in time, all this sort of thing will come about. The question is, could you rally them ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think I'm right in saying that the four crayon like tubes on each side of the wings are solid fuel rockets to get it airborne and up to speed, at which point the jet engines would be able to sustain flight. A chap I met on a training course had been working on one of the last batteries to be decommissioned. A cold, wet, place where it was "difficult to keep the blue touch-paper dry". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think I'm right in saying (you're tell me if I'm not) that the shoulder mounted 'Stinger' anti aircraft missile can do much the same job as the 'Bloodhound' did in it's day. It's incredible how the technology has progressed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJj7kXVh9BQ I suspect the one man Stinger would run out of puff long before the 50 mile range of Bloodhound mk2.:??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 I suspect the one man Stinger would run out of puff long before the 50 mile range of Bloodhound mk2.:??? I suspect one man would run out of puff fairly quickly trying to lug a Bloodhound mk2 around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 (edited) You're right Mike the Stinger only has a range of 15,700ft at Mach 2.2 where as the Bristol Bloodhound mk2 was 52 miles at Mach 2.7 ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Bloodhound Edited June 27, 2008 by AndyFowler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I suspect one man would run out of puff fairly quickly trying to lug a Bloodhound mk2 around. :rofl::rofl: Good answer Tom, but as Andy has pointed out, they are designed for two totally different defence scenarios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 OK who had the Airfix Bloodhound and Landy kit then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 (edited) There is another Bloodhound at Thorpe Camp Museum, on the road between RAF Woodhall (Spa) and RAF Coningsby. (and AN EE Lightening, A tiger moth restoration project,, and Airfield runway heavy bomber arrester wire kit....and other bits and bobs) Edited June 27, 2008 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 (edited) :rofl::rofl: Good answer Tom, but as Andy has pointed out, they are designed for two totally different defence scenarios. I was hoping my appreciation of that was evident in my answer. What I had meant by "does much the same job" was that both were anti-aircraft missiles. Anyway, I've decided to have all my future posts vetted by a both a legal expert, and defence specialist, before submitting them in order avoid any future misunderstandings. PM sent yesterday. Cheers, 6 X 6. Edited June 27, 2008 by 6 X 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 OK who had the Airfix Bloodhound and Landy kit then? guilty! Wouldn't fancy towing the beast with a Landy though. As I remember the Landy in the kit was SWB 88. Kit is still listed £4.99 it was about 5 bob when I got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Thats all well and good to have a static display but I had a friend from Rhode Island who believed in a bit more portable although non-operational missile I think it was a former training aid of a deactivated Minute Man missile shown here transported in two pieces to a local parade a number of years ago . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 While we're on the subject of missiles, does anyone a 'photo to post here of the replica V2 (?) rocket that was at a recent W&P or knows where it is now ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFowler Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Just for you 6X6 as you are a big Scammell fan like me :-D ! 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.