IrishGunner

Nice looking pre-WW2 badge; thanks for sharing!

In this case the R.A. "beret" badge is about two thirds the size(if that) of what we would normally recognise and more compact, so the detail you see on the larger "cap" badge as worn in the peaked cap isn't as prominent as you would expect.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be so definitive that this is RA with no other possibilities. I have physical examples of both RA badges - and holding them here in my hand right now, I'm still not convinced this is without any question RA. But the fact I have no viable alternative, makes RA the leading candidate.

Of course, it could be just the angle and the graininess of the photo, but I truly don't think this is a Royal Artillery badge. The "scroll" appears too straight and I can't discern any straight angles to the top portion. It looks totally round instead of having a barrel to the left and the gun trail to the right. OTOH, I have no viable alternative; I've glanced through the two books I have on badges, but no real good candidates.

From my understanding, a Militarpass is like a personnel service record; while a Soldbuch is more of an accounting document - leave, pay, etc. The Militarpass would be maintained by the unit HQ (but would transfer with the soldier if he changed units) and the Soldbuch was held by the soldier himself.

My reading of the last award is Karl Friedrich Verdienst Medal - another Baden award.

The name is too faded for my old eyes...

Frankly, I doubt the Government regrets the decision. And with NATO now squabbling about the Libya operation, maybe it's time for some regret on the part of all European countries as they think about cutting defense budgets as they have since the end of the Cold War. I'm afraid we are entering a brave new world and many "first world" countries that have been living fat and happy the last decades are going to be woefully unprepared.

Wow, even cleaned up an painted those helmets look way too good to have been in the ground for almost 100 years. The gas masks on the other hand...

Nice pick-up - Irish regiment medals, especially casualties are very desired.

With the enlargement, I go with "bad hat day"

I still can't get over how young he was when he died (48 1/2 years). I suppose a traumatic illness is as likely as an equine accident.

Life expectancy for his birth year was only 50-60 years. So, a couple years early, but not so "young". Probably an accident or sudden illness.

With the on-going Libya operation, only France, Italy, and Spain have aircraft carriers available. The Charles de Gaulle has been committed already. Of course, there's Malta. But I wonder if anyone in Whitehall or the Admiralty wish they hadn't scrapped the Ark Royal. Seems this operation in the Med is exactly what a smaller non-US type carrier is most useful.

Or maybe I shouldn't wonder too much...

http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2011/03/21/libya-crisis-could-scupper-british-aircraft-carriers-once-and-for-all/

Interesting piece; particularly the wings. And the eagle looking so much like the Bundesrepublik's. Wish you had the personal story behind the origins. Thanks for sharing.

A nice reference - great pictures. Thanks, Hardy.

i just looked at the history of the Iron Cross booklet that Naxos posted in the downloads. This picture is in that book as well. Along with a lot of other great EK photos.

I recently picked up a book produced by the NY Times which is a compilation of photographs that appeared in the newspaper. The book itself is from 1915 and has photographs from the first weeks of the war in 1914. This is Volume 1, Part 1; apparently there are more volumes. It has a lot of interesting pictures from all sides; French, British, Belgians, Germans, Serbians, Russians. The usual pictures; artillery pieces, bombed churches, soldiers marching, wounded etc etc etc. I thought this the most unusual photograph and perhaps of unique interest to many on the forum.

A jeweler making new Iron Crosses. Also is the cover of the book...

A pretty bar... :catjava:

This just sold on eBay for $12 (not to me); it looks like the same battery position. And those are German soldiers.

I think at least we can narrow this down to a German gun position armed with at least 10cm naval ordnance.

But no chain in this photo...

Haven't seen the one on the left.

The one on the right is a badge: "Participant in the Liquidation of Effects of the Accident at the ChAES (Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant)" This was awarded to volunteers who went into the radioactive zone to clean up the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. I've seen a lot of these in flea markets in Eastern Europe for a few dollars. They sell for way too much on internet sites in my opinion.

Considering events in Japan, there may be increased interest in these currently.

Who says it's going to the side? If you look closely, it appears that the chain is running straight out & down from the barrel, which gives the appearance of it running sideways. Given the height of the barrel above the ground, I don't think it's unreasonable for the chain to be angling downwards, esp. if the other end is being pulled (at waist height) by a group of men, or connected to something else.

I agree that maintenance on the gun is a better theory than cleaning the bore, yet it doesn't explain why the chain would be run down the barrel. If I were going to pull it out of battery, I would wrap the chain around the end of the barrel, not feed it all the way down to the breech.

Who says it's going to the side? I say that it's going to the side.

Quite frankly, as a gunner, there is absolutely no theory to me that acceptably explains why a chain is being run down the tube. Mervyn is right; this is a war-time field expedient method for something.

And to be disciplined enough to care about a clean tube would argue against being stupid enough to use a chain to do the cleaning. So, if one had to use a field expedient method, it had better be something important enough to risk damaging the tube. To me, that is pulling it out of battery to perform some kind of necessary maintenance to be able to make the gun ready to fire. A simple cleaning isn't that important.

Of course, I'm applying my standards as a modern gunner; they could have been quite different in those days. And my standards might be different than other gunners.

Thanks for that Mervyn.

Rick is going to circulate the image among some Artillery buffs so with luck we may get a few more theories to discuss,

Simon

So, far the only theory that has come up on the other forum is the "cleaning" theory. And I just can't get on board with that one...

Why is the chain taut going to the side if they are simply cleaning the gun? Wouldn't it be pulled straight out? And if it's being pulled, why not show the soldiers pulling instead of the barrel and no one?

Of course, cleaning the tube remains a plausible theory, I just don't think likely.

I think this card will have to go back in the unidentified pile !!!!!!

Best regards Simon

Don't feel bad; I have a few in that pile - well at least a pile that I'm not 100% sure of. :rolleyes:

You know it just occurred to me that back when I still served in a gun battery, we would use a chain (often attached to a crane in the maintenance shop or a 5-ton wrecker in the field) wrapped around the outside of tube in order to pull it "out of battery" (out of its normal firing position which would release pressure on the recoil system) and hold the tube up in order to perform maintenance on the hydraulic recoil system. Of course, again we wrapped the chain on the outside the tube (to prevent tube damage) and it would not slip off because of the muzzle brake.

The gun in the picture likely has a recoil system and the chain could be related to a maintenance procedure. As the tube has no muzzle break, they would need to attach a chain differently. To be this taut, I would think the chain is running down the tube and is connected to something at the breech end. Of course, since it's in the field and not a depot, they would have to use a field expedient method that would not be normally used. Like putting a chain down the barrel.

Also, might explain why the "plate" propped on the front of the bunker has been removed from the gun and has been put out of the way while they perform some type of maintenance.

The maintenance theory is the only thing that makes sense to me now.

Rick and Harvey

Many thanks for your replies. Being an ex infantryman I know very little about the gunners art however could this be some attempt to spike a gun prior to being overrun. I have heard of breech blocks being smashed and various parts of the weapon being buried and have also seen those pictures where the gun;s muzzle is splayed open although I have no idea how this is achieved.

Could this be a photograph taken by a successful assault unit having captured the gun before it could be destroyed?

Best regards Simon

An attempt to damage the gun before capture. Hmm? An interesting theory, but it would take a lot of effort with a chain in the barrel. Smashing breech blocks (or simply removing the block) are easier and thus more common method.

As for the splayed barrels; those are the result a weakened gun tube from excessive wear (because some idiot repeatedly put a chain down the barrel?) caused from repeated and heavy firing of the weapon or because of a flaw in the tube from manufacturer that eventually gives because of the constant pressure. They were common on both sides of the trenches; but the photos you see most often are German guns. In German: rohrkrepiehrer (sp?) which you often see written on the photo.

I wondered if this bunker could have been captured and the chain was being used to pull the gun out of the bunker but then why anchor it in the barrel and not on some other part of the gun?

Simon, I wondered about the capture part too; but the "bunker" is really just a screen; there does not seem to be a solid backside to the bunker. They could pull the gun out from the other direction with no trouble.

The tautness of the chain is the most troubling. If it were just hanging out of the barrel, the other theories would make more sense.

Re. the chain - it could be used to to attach a bore brush to, then run down the length of the barrel and pulled back out. Given the length of the barrel, it might've been difficult to push a rod with brush attached all the way down. This way, the chain could be fed down the barrel, the brush attached at the breech, then pulled back out the barrel. Just a thought.

I seriously doubt that the chain was used as you describe. As a gunner, I can't imagine gunners would have subjected the tube to the banging of a chain. The chain would have created nicks, scrapes, and other damage to the rifling of the barrel. While gunnery was still in development, there certainly was an understanding that tube wear had an impact on accuracy. The tube isn't that long to push through a long, extended rod with a bore brush; it's still done that way today. If they had to pull it through, more likely a rope would have been used rather than a chain.

It's for these reasons that the chain makes no sense whatsoever to my mind.

I have recently obtained a post card with a Feldpost stempel: K.u.K Überprüfungs-Kommision Innsbruck

Anyone know what this entity might have done? I seem to have read somewhere that it might have been a body charged with overseeing conscription.