Firefly

That rear nearside tyre could do with some air.....

Absolutely stunning....i thought it was some kind of wind up at first....

Will be very interested in seeing the movie, even if i don't understand a word of it! I love the big capital ships of WWII and have never been much of a Carrier man. I love the Japanese designs, the pagoda superstructures etc, in my opinion the best looking Capital ships ever....although the Italians are a close second....

A fantastic site there John, i spent about an hour reading it at work the other night....

Something gives me the impression that the author doesn't rate the Stryker too highly!!

I love first-hand accounts of stuff on the ground such as the Iraq battle described, good stuff...

Amos.

The panther was IMO the best all around tank of WW2

←

Agreed Jim, the Panther was, in my opinion, the potentially best tank of WWII, but never quite made it due to the initial and then ongoing reliability problems. The German designers wanted to just copy the T34 straight, but Hitler would have none of it, the German tank had to be bigger and better, entirely defeating the purpose of a simple, cheap, easy-to-produce tank!

The thread is about the most influential tank, not the 'best' tank. I still stick to my argument that the most influential tank ever is the Centurian. Just look at what Israel managed to do with them......

Cheers for that.....

Pardon my ignorance Terry, how did you get the photo's? Judging from the condition i should imagine she isn't open to the public....

Amos.

"The Lecrerc is the best tank in the world"....i like that!!! Not a bad tank as such, but better than our Challenger II? Nah....

Cheers for the pics John, any more good 'uns?

Can the Merkava and/or the Blackhawk see the Apache or Warthog that is about to kill it?

←

They'd probably both outrun the warthog!!!!

Some great pictures there Tony......

Thats a Sturmmorser Tiger with the unusual barrel, unless i'm mistaken. Only 18 of those were ever converted from the Tiger I, so it's great to see one on display, a rare beast indeed......

Do you know if the WWI tank is a Sturmpanzerwagen A7V? I've never seen one of those either. Again, produced in very small numbers, about 20. Not very effective apparently.

Wilsy,

I think they were built all over the place to be honest. The programme was too big to concentrate it all in one place, so you may well be right. I do know that there was something like 45,000 men devoted to building the Mulberry harbours! A pretty astounding figure....

I beleive that there was a Queens Police Medall for gallantrybut now its for desk wallahs for " Service "

←

Foo, don't even get me started on this!!!!! flame

I'm gutted Foo!

That blank plate has been on the Konig every time i've been, and i've never understood why. They should have removed it long ago to let us have a look!

Funny you should mention the Panzer III. I sat in that last time i was there. Even though the entire side of the tank is cut away, it felt so cramped in there. The barrel literally recoils to about two inches from your chest, not something i would feel comforatble with! The slits in the cupola make you realize why commanders risked travelling around with the hatch open....

Hi Mr Vice-Chairman. How come people here all say to keep you away from the Beer/Cider supplies? cheeky

←

Don't go there Laurence! Trust me, you don't want to meet Mr Vice Chairman with a few Ciders down his neck.... :food-smiley-004: :violent-smiley-017: (or certain other club staff come to mention it....)

An update.......I visited the Museum again on my days off. They have been granted ?8.5 million by the Lottery to totally re-build the Museum. I have mixed feelings about this, and can't help feeling that it is in danger of being turned into some 'inter-active' tourist attraction, with hordes of brats screaming round the place

On the plus side, the larger bulidings mean that the reserve collection can be cleaned up and put on display. At the moment they're just too pushed for space......

Thank you kurtz. very interesting. So what was the first aircraft carrier and what did it have flying off it? :blink:

←

Ah, now we're into my territory Johnnyboy!

The first 'Aircraft Carrier' wasn't exactly that in the true sense of the word. The Ben-my-Chree was a 'Seaplane Carrier', having two Short Seaplanes on board which were converted to carry torpedoes. She was, i believe, a heavy cruiser with her aft converted with a hanger and workshop. Apparently they had great success against enemy merchant vessels. She saw action in the Dardanelles campaign before coming a cropper and being sunk in Jan 1917.

The Furious. could be described as the first designated aircraft carrier. She was initially designed with a short flightdeck forward of her superstructure, but was eventually completed with a continuous flight-deck. She carried 16 Sopworth Camels.

The first real Carriers designed as such, were Hermes, Argus, and Eagle. Only Argus was completed before the end of WWI. They were about 11,000 tonnes each.......

Looks like it could be about an 8" gun

←

Yeah i think that sounds about right Laurence. I've found brief mentions of her in my books. She was off the shores of Gallipoli apparently......

Hi Coastie, and welcome aboard The Forum........Why is it that no MOH's were awarded to Astronauts prior to 1979? Having watched Apollo 13 yesterday i'm curious...!!

Ah yes, that makes it a bit easier to picture now, the canvas cover in the photo threw me off a bit....... wub.gif

Ah! I did suspect she was a monitor, small hull, large gun etc....

A 'Monitor' is basically a gun platform. Not designed to be particularly seaworthy, and certainly not designed for ship-to-ship combat. It's purpose is as a bombardment platform.....

Perhaps the most famous monitors are the Erebus and Roberts. These were off the shores of Normandy on D-Day. The gun from Roberts is on display outside the Imperial War Museum.....

       Its sad, really, it appears to have been devalued . I can't see it going for a quarter of a million pounds at Spink.

I think the normal bravery (despite what my last post said) of our Armed Forces is generally devalued as time goes on anyway. It's a very sad state of affairs indeed when more air-time is given to the Michael Jackson trial than such things as this....it really only seems to be amongst such circles as ours that such acts are recognized.....

I must confess to having had a bit of a hidden agenda when i originally made this post.....i originally saw it on Sky News (as you all know, awards and decorations are not my bag, so that was the first i knew of it)......when i saw it i thought "Hmmm, am i just being a cynic or is there more to this than meets the eye?".......i must admit that the replies have confirmed my original suspicions!!..

No luck with the books, i'm more of a Capital Ship man! Some clues please......is she in a British dockyard? Any famous battles she was involved with?....

Dear oh dear! I'm not a Medal man as you all know, but that looks like something a kid would win on Sports Day for the egg-and-spoon race!

I believe that the aluminium hull is only sufficient to withstand small arms fire?

The PT-76 can travel up to 40 miles through water by using it's bilge pumps and water jets. The chassis is also used in the BTR-50 APC. I believe it was still in Russian service until just a few years ago.....

Yes, they were definately into their technology! This is why i still reckon they should have stuck with the up-gunned MKIV. Not the most cutting-edge tank by the end of the War, but had they concentrated on sheer numbers it would have made a hell of a difference. I understand that three MKIV tanks could be produced for each Tiger I?

Hitlers obsession with new technology undoubtedly played a part. He was more interested in producing 'shiny' new tanks than repairing those immobilized on the front line.

I think this is the wrong section for this discussion to go further!