Silver Membership
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Egorka

  • Rank
    Regular Member
  1. Hello, Brian1941 IMHO, I am in doubt... The screw plate is not from such OPW2. The hanging device is questionable by these photos. And finally the order it self. I don't like the sabre guard - too thin. I don't mention the enamel repair. This might not be a problem depending on your collection criteria. I usually don't mind f.ex. if the research is good. IMHO of course. Maybe someone else have an opinion.
  2. Discovered interesting bit today.Regiment Commander KOREBEINIKOV is visiting US 3rd Armored Division ("Third Herd"), Leipzig, 26 April 1945. Getting a tour of M-24 "Сhaffee".
  3. Thank you for the tour! Here is the description and symbolism of operation "Anthropoid" monument, erected 2009: Scroll for English. The round stone is not part of the monument (at least according to the description). It existed at least from 2003 (checked historical Google Earth maps). It is not maked as a monument on the online resource I managed to find... Maybe it is just recreational object?
  4. Translation: 23 April 1943. 106 Rifle Corps Command, Personnel Section. To all Heads of Staff. Despite the existence of regulations regarding awarding personnel distinguished themselves in the fight against the German invaders elementary requirements for proper paperwork are still not fulfilled. More specifically: Award decrees are written on non-standard issue paper, carelessly, often with misspelled names. The citation are often filled in inappropriately, with a lot of abbreviations and shortenings, the front side questionnaire is not fully answered. There are instances when the responsible personnel lacks knowledge of order statutes, and often recommend servicemen for an inappropriate award. F.ex. according to statute, the order of "Aleksander Nevsky" is reserved for platoon, company, battalion, regiment, or division commanders. But there were cases when deputy Heads of Staff and Heads of Staff were recommended. There are cases of recommendations for inappropriately low award. Or f.ex. a group of officers were recommended by personnel without high enough authority. There were recorded instances when recommendations were hastily submitted again for the same feats without allowing for proper paper processing time. This introduces lots of confusion and excessive paper exchange. The personnel of the detached units, which are assigned to the direct control of armies and fronts, are recommended by decrees issued by their own commanders. But sometimes the papers are wrongly submitted directly to the army HQ, which lead to double award for same single feat. In all the cases, the recommendations approved by the direct superiors are to be submitted directly to the HQ of the appropriate armed forces. In paperwork strictly follow the following guidelines: A) all the award decrees issued by authority of regiment and division commanders are to be signed by ink, wax sealed and submitted to HQ of 106 Rifle Corps in two copies, amended by a copy of recommendation, and two copies of statistical overview (form #4). The second copy of recommendation is to be kept in the unit. B) When filling in the questionnaire on the recommendation front side the items “position” and “unit” are to be filled in without shortenings and abbreviations; in “participation in Patriotic war” write since what time and on what front; in “party membership” write party seniority and membership booklet number; in “wounds” item do not write the date, sevirity and front; in “previous awards” write previous awards and the decrees # and date; in “home address” write family members full names. C) When approving the recommendation don not abbreviate the unit names, f.ex. “SP”, “SD”, “AP”, “OSISB” and others have to be written as full names. D) Do not stitch together the submitted document. Instruct all the relevant personnel in order to eliminate the aforementioned flaws in award process, which is a very important work. Head of personnel section of 106 Rifle Corps, Sr. Lieutenant VELICHKO Aid to Head of personnel section 106 Rifle Corps, Captain MIKHAILOV
  5. Hello all, Doing research for one of the forum members interesting situation was observed in the paperwork. The citation was written for one medal and went all the way through approval channels without modifications. But the final decree was for another medal. This alone is not something very unusual. But in this case the twist was, that the original recommendation in the citation was for a civil medal "For Labour Valour", but the final decree for military medal "For Battle Merits". This natural raised a questions: "How come?" and "Is this paperwork for the same award or different ones?" Well, the answer is rather simple actually - human factor. The awardee (a woman) was a civilian while performing her duties as typist/secretary/bookkeeper for Army HQ. Her immediate superiors were not properly informed on the relevant award statutes, and decided to recommend her for a civilian award. Later the central award comity corrected the error and issues decree for medal "For Battle Merits". So this story led me to think of one of the documents describing such discrepancies and human factor in Soviet paperwork. Translation follows shortly.
  6. Well, indeed! It pulled off $510. Have we missed out on a very-very rare ORB? I bet the new owner reads this thread and laughs at us.
  7. Hi Eric. MONDVOR page does NOT cover the variations in serial numbers. It only covers variations in the actual order shapes. Saying that, it is indeed very questionable item, IMO. My initial comment on the other forum about engraving was driven by desire to say, that this unusual number engraving hand is genuine and known on this range of ORB. But on this particular one we have an imitation of this unusual hand, because the whole item looks dodgy.
  8. Here is the citation. This one is an examples when on the way through the approval channels the award was changing, either upgraded or downgraded. Sometimes quite dramatically. I have seen one downgrade from Order of Aleksander Nevsky to medal For Battle Merit. Though in that case the reason was obvious overestimation in original recommendation. Well, here, in case of Kulik's award, the original recommendation was for the Order of Great Patriotic War I class on 29.10.1944. The next day, the first superior, the commander of Waterway Area Defence, approved OGPW1. At the next level the recommendation was downgraded to OGPW II class by vice-admiral Zukov (do not confuse with Georgy Zukov ). But then the award decree #37 from 05.12.1944 has Kulik's name in the list of Red Star awardees. Text of the citation: In the 1944 campaign combat missions he revealed himself as a steadfast warrior. During mine sweeping mission close to the enemy coast on 28-05-1944, the boats were attacked by 30 enemy planes (J-87 and Me-109). In this engagement the machine-gun crew lead by comrade Kulik repelled 4 attacks, forcing the enemy to disorderly drop the bombs in the water with no effect. On 05-06-1944 conducting similar operation the boats were again attacked by enemy aircrafts. In this fight Kulik's crew shot down one J-87. In the landing operations Kulik's crew supported our infantry on the ground by accurate fire. His crew shot and destroyed 13 floating mines during the campaign. For exhibited resolve, gallantry and effective command in the battle recommended for the order of Great Patriotic War I class. signed by the Commander of 11 patrol boat squadron Subcommander Prosyannikov 29 October 1944
  9. Please, meet Petty Officer I class Kulik Stepan Porfir'evich, gunlayer of the AA speedboat CK-418, 11 Patrol Boat Squadron of Waterway Area Defence. Born in 1919, he lived at least until 1985 when he was awarded OGPW2. Awards: Medal "For Battle Merits" # 2552391 , 25.04.1944 Order of "Red Star" # 923968 , 05.12.1944 10 commendations Badge "Excellent gunner" OGPW2 in 1985 Armoured small submarine chaser «БМО», project 194. Main armament is 37mm automatic cannon on the bow, one 45mm cannon and a pair of 12,7mm machine-guns, 10pcs of 120kg and 20kg depth charges. CK-418 was 2nd of 66 total built boats of the project 194. It was set afloat 5.11.1942 and commenced service on 21.06.1943. Kulik's Register Card showing earned awards: Some photographs of the Small Sub Chasers project 194:
  10. Well, the list expands. This is not a ducky-pheasant. It is a dove! Unlike European culture, a dove in Japanese traditional culture is a symbol of war, not peace. A dove (hato) is symbolic animal and messenger of Hachiman - the the syncretic divinity of archery and war and the divine protector of Japan, the Japanese people and the Imperial House, the Minamoto clan ("Genji") and most samurai worshipped him.
  11. I know of 3 symbolic birds in Japanese culture: a crane, a pheasant, a crow. It is definitely not a crane. I hope not! Cranes look much different. Could be a three-legged crow (Yatagarasu). But here the most important attribute - three legs - is nowhere in sight. So I go with duck-looking pheasant.
  12. In Japan the pheasant is a divine messenger for Amaterasu, the great sun goddess. Amaterasu is a focal point of the Shinto pantheon. She is the ruler of the heavens, so her association with the pheasant made this creature an important symbol of power, abundance and promise. Me thinks so.