Post cool photo's of WW2 Machines/Engineering

[Simpo Two]

glazbagun said:

Was Jutland about poor ships, or poor practices and leadership?

Mostly poor ship design - or shall we say, not as good as the Germans. First rule of battleship warfare is 'Hit first, Hit hard, Keep hitting'. Beatty threw away his range advantage, Britsh gunnery was poor (partly lack of practice due to financial restrictions and partly inferior optics and fire control), and British shells were not as armour piercing as planned. There was also the operational issue of leaving magazine doors open to speed reloading - fatal as a shell strike could flash down into the magazine and blow up the ship. Two battlecruisers were lost in this way, prompting Beatty's famous comment 'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today'.

German ships fired more accurately and with greater effect, and their ships absorbed remarkable punishment without sinking. In summary the Royal Navy was still basking in the 'Nelson effect' of 100 years before and had not been seriously tested by a determined new rival. However the German Navy was sufficiently worried never to venture out in force again, so Britain retained control of the seas. An island nation must be able to control the seas around it, or it's wide open to invasion.

glazbagun said:

What was the name of the kickass French battleship that never got the chance to fire a shot in anger?

Don't know. But as Churchill said, it's the size of the fight in the dog that counts

[falcemob]

BigLepton said:

falcemob said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

My very own piece of WW11 machinery..................

Can you count that as WW11 engineering? It was designed before WW11 by the Bantam Motor Co. and evolved into the Ford GP and Willys MB in 1941, before the US were in the war.
Yours does look nice, looks like it's a Ford GP

Edited by falcemob on Wednesday 31st December 21:51

The first meeting between Bantam and the US military took place on June 19th 1940, the tender was accepted on July 22nd and the first prototype was delivered in September of that year. Just coz the yanks were still hiding under their beds at the time hoping Hitler would go away, doesn't mean WW2 didn't start until they joined in!

That's not what I was led to believe, I thought it was 1938, but I'll trust you know more than me about it.
Seeing that one makes me wish I'd never sold mine, what are they like for getting parts now?

Edited by falcemob on Thursday 1st January 07:50

[Bruggy]

Nazi staff cars at the Sinsheim Museum near Stuttgart. A fantastic museum if anyone ever gets the chance they should visit it.

[Eric Mc]

Many "classic" weapons of WW2 were designed in the 1920s and 1930s (and sometimes even before that).

[Incredible Sulk]

Simpo Two said:

glazbagun said:

Was Jutland about poor ships, or poor practices and leadership?

Mostly poor ship design - or shall we say, not as good as the Germans. First rule of battleship warfare is 'Hit first, Hit hard, Keep hitting'. Beatty threw away his range advantage, Britsh gunnery was poor (partly lack of practice due to financial restrictions and partly inferior optics and fire control), and British shells were not as armour piercing as planned. There was also the operational issue of leaving magazine doors open to speed reloading - fatal as a shell strike could flash down into the magazine and blow up the ship. Two battlecruisers were lost in this way, prompting Beatty's famous comment 'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today'.

German ships fired more accurately and with greater effect, and their ships absorbed remarkable punishment without sinking. In summary the Royal Navy was still basking in the 'Nelson effect' of 100 years before and had not been seriously tested by a determined new rival. However the German Navy was sufficiently worried never to venture out in force again, so Britain retained control of the seas. An island nation must be able to control the seas around it, or it's wide open to invasion.


)

I think it was three battlecruisers. Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible. Indefatigable and Queen Mary were lost in the initial phase of the battle, Invincible (not under Beatty's command that day anyway) later in the day.

Also, arguably Beatty's biggest mistake was his deployment of the 5th Battle Squadron. Had the four 'Queen Elizabeth's' been in a position to be brought into the action at the beginning, then it is possible that we would have lost fewer ships, and the German 1st Scouting Group may well have lost more. Another factor was Beatty's failure to ensure which ships were targeting which, which left one of the German Battlecruisers free to shoot at its 'oppo' unmolested. The Jutland controversy goes on, 90 years after the event!

But we are going off topic on a WW2 photo thread aren't we?

[BLUETHUNDER]

falcemob said:

BigLepton said:

falcemob said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

My very own piece of WW11 machinery..................

Can you count that as WW11 engineering? It was designed before WW11 by the Bantam Motor Co. and evolved into the Ford GP and Willys MB in 1941, before the US were in the war.
Yours does look nice, looks like it's a Ford GP

Edited by falcemob on Wednesday 31st December 21:51

The first meeting between Bantam and the US military took place on June 19th 1940, the tender was accepted on July 22nd and the first prototype was delivered in September of that year. Just coz the yanks were still hiding under their beds at the time hoping Hitler would go away, doesn't mean WW2 didn't start until they joined in!

That's not what I was led to believe, I thought it was 1938, but I'll trust you know more than me about it.
Seeing that one makes me wish I'd never sold mine, what are they like for getting parts now?

Edited by falcemob on Thursday 1st January 07:50

Parts are not a problem for these,and are well catered for.You could actually build one from repro parts if you wanted too.This one was restored 20 years ago,and underwent a total nut and bolt restoration.The fella that restored it,has also carried out restorations for Kevin Wheatcroft(The Wheatcroft collection)At Donnington.And big U.S collector Jacque Littlefield.Who has more tanks in his collection than most armies.This one has been in the family since 76.

[BLUETHUNDER]

16VJay said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

A few were brought back here after the wars end and evaluated against the Centurion.

After the war we built a batch of Panthers up from parts stock left in the factory - those were probably from that batch - I think the one in the Bovington museum is too and I'm pretty sure it has a brass plaque on the glacis stating it was built under REME supervision.

There were actualy a number of captured examples brought back and evaluted against the new Centurion at Chertsey.By the time the evaluation was at an end and the Cent was in full production the war had ended.The Cent went on for many years and had great success with the IDF against the Syrians and the Egyptians.If only it had been out a few years earlier,then it would hve changed the ballance of tank power.

[falcemob]

BLUETHUNDER said:

Parts are not a problem for these,and are well catered for.You could actually build one from repro parts if you wanted too.This one was restored 20 years ago,and underwent a total nut and bolt restoration.The fella that restored it,has also carried out restorations for Kevin Wheatcroft(The Wheatcroft collection)At Donnington.And big U.S collector Jacque Littlefield.Who has more tanks in his collection than most armies.This one has been in the family since 76.

Mmmmmm, I get more and more tempted every time I see a picture of one on here. I got mine by chance as my brother restored one in the 60s and then wanted a genuine trailer, the only way he could get one at the time was by buying another Jeep that came with a trailer, he was going to sell the Jeep but I got it off him and restored it, well I did the mechanicals and my dad got his company's body shop blokes to do the bodywork for me.
As I didn't use it much and he'd paid for most of it my dad sold it in 1976/77 for about £400 which wasn't too bad a price then. What would I expect to pay for one now restored or unrestored?

[BLUETHUNDER]

falcemob said:

BLUETHUNDER said:

Parts are not a problem for these,and are well catered for.You could actually build one from repro parts if you wanted too.This one was restored 20 years ago,and underwent a total nut and bolt restoration.The fella that restored it,has also carried out restorations for Kevin Wheatcroft(The Wheatcroft collection)At Donnington.And big U.S collector Jacque Littlefield.Who has more tanks in his collection than most armies.This one has been in the family since 76.

Mmmmmm, I get more and more tempted every time I see a picture of one on here. I got mine by chance as my brother restored one in the 60s and then wanted a genuine trailer, the only way he could get one at the time was by buying another Jeep that came with a trailer, he was going to sell the Jeep but I got it off him and restored it, well I did the mechanicals and my dad got his company's body shop blokes to do the bodywork for me.
As I didn't use it much and he'd paid for most of it my dad sold it in 1976/77 for about £400 which wasn't too bad a price then. What would I expect to pay for one now restored or unrestored?

The word restoration varies quite considerably in Jeep world.I would just say that tidy examples go for around the £8,500-£10,000 mark.With the licence built Hotchkiss going for slightly less.I have seen so called genuine restoration going for around £16-£20,000.But on closer inspection i always find that some where along the line they have used incorrect parts.I had a considerable offer for my one some years ago by a representive of someone i mentioned in my earlier post.Never been tempted to sell though.

[mrmaggit]

glazbagun said:

Simpo Two said:

Fezant Pluckah said:

I wasn't aware this was a " we did it first" thread. The fact is the British failed dismally in their attempt to mount an 18inch gun on a ship. Only the Japanese mastered that. When it came to battleship design the Japanese (and Americans) were leaps and bounds better than us.

I'd vote the Germans as best battleship makers, in both world wars. They won Jutland on points and the WW2 pocket battleships are legends - even if they didn't know how to use a Navy properly!

Was Jutland about poor ships, or poor practices and leadership? I'd put the US as the best Battleship makers by the end of WWII, though Vanguard was (or rather- would have been) a pretty excellent ship for Atlantic operations, I'm led to believe, despite the age of its guns.

What was the name of the kickass French battleship that never got the chance to fire a shot in anger?

Richelieu?

[hman]

where the photos chaps, too much talky not enough looky!

[Simpo Two]

Incredible Sulk said:

I think it was three battlecruisers. Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible. Indefatigable and Queen Mary were lost in the initial phase of the battle, Invincible (not under Beatty's command that day anyway) later in the day.[quote]

I could remember the QM (they were the best gunnery ship) but not the others without looking it up as they all begin with 'I' and it gets confusing!

Also, arguably Beatty's biggest mistake was his deployment of the 5th Battle Squadron. Had the four 'Queen Elizabeth's' been in a position to be brought into the action at the beginning, then it is possible that we would have lost fewer ships, and the German 1st Scouting Group may well have lost more. Another factor was Beatty's failure to ensure which ships were targeting which, which left one of the German Battlecruisers free to shoot at its 'oppo' unmolested.

Signalling was difficult at the best of times - funnel smoke often obscured flags, and wireless was in its infancy.

It's easy to replan a battle afterwards when you know what went wrong and where the enemy was, but of course at the time neither fleet had any idea - the first you'd know about it was smoke on the horizon. Jellicoe was also very concerned about torpedo attack either from submarines or destroyers so didn't like to get too close. The remarkable thing to me is that both fleet's battleships passed each other in the night, in opposite directions, almost without realising!

More at www.worldwar1.co.uk/jutland.html

Outome at www.worldwar1.co.uk/outcome.html



Whilst looking for photos I found this simulator: www.hpssims.com/pages/Products/NavCamp/Jutland/jut...

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 1st January 12:02

[rhinochopig]

Yertis said:

Eric Mc said:

A better comparison to be made between the Fairchild A-10 and a WW2 design is the Henschel Hs129.

Or the Sturmovik?

Hopefully this doesn't get answered later (I'm only on page 2), but the A-10 was born out of the success the A-1D Skyraider enjoyed during the Vietnam conflict. IIRC that was the justification for signing off on the procurement contract.

Just noticed the too much talky comment.


Kettengrad


Tiger



Sherman (Tommy Cooker)


King Tiger (at Bovingdon)


Bren Gun carrier (Bovingdon)



M3 Grant - formally a range target.


M26 Pershing

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 1st January 12:35

[Eric Mc]

hman said:

where the photos chaps, too much talky not enough looky!

Can't really understand this point of view. I always thought PH was a discussion forum at heart. As long as the talk relates to the pics - I can't see the problem.

[BLUETHUNDER]

rhinochopig said:

Yertis said:

Eric Mc said:

A better comparison to be made between the Fairchild A-10 and a WW2 design is the Henschel Hs129.

Or the Sturmovik?

Hopefully this doesn't get answered later (I'm only on page 2), but the A-10 was born out of the success the A-1D Skyraider enjoyed during the Vietnam conflict. IIRC that was the justification for signing off on the procurement contract.

Just noticed the too much talky comment.


Kettengrad


Tiger



Sherman (Tommy Cooker)


King Tiger (at Bovingdon)


Bren Gun carrier (Bovingdon)



M3 Grant - formally a range target.


M26 Pershing

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 1st January 12:35

The Tiger in the pic is in fact one of a few mock-ups that were made based on T54/55 chassis for the film saving private ryan.And later used in BOB.There are Three running Tigers in the World.One resides at Bovington.The other is near completeion in the Wheatcroft collection at Donnington.The third is in the states and part of Jacque Littlefields collection.

[BruceV8]

Ellis456 said:

Hi, I visted one of these or am I daydreaming?, it was a school trip many years ago, was in France either bologne or calais, think bologne am I right?.

BruceV8 said:

TheEnd said:

This gun is a WW2 K5E 21 cm railway gun - the spiritual successor of the Paris gun. These could be fired from their rail mounting and first fired accross the channel on the UK in August 1940. Shells landed as far inland as Maidstone and Chatham.

Edit. This gun is a K12V 21 cm. Right calibre - wrong designation, whereas.....

[BruceV8]

Ellis456 said:

[img]

this gun is a K5E 28cm gun.

There were only 2 K12s buit but around a dozen K5s and the K5 was a much more useable and versatile gun - as far as railway guns go. One was used to bombard he Anzio beach head in Italy and was nicknamed Anzio Annie by the Allies.

I said the Paris gun was destroyed,as was Gustav/Dora. Not sure what happened to the K12s, but around half of the K5s were destroyed, either by their crews or in action and the rest survive. Anzio Annie is in the USA.

[ZR1cliff]

Now I know flame throwers were a product of WW1 but were flame thrower tanks first used in WW2 ? I'm off to find a pic of a flail tank.

[BruceV8]

BLUETHUNDER said:

Tiger

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 1st January 12:35

The Tiger in the pic is in fact one of a few mock-ups that were made based on T54/55 chassis for the film saving private ryan.And later used in BOB.There are Three running Tigers in the World.One resides at Bovington.The other is near completeion in the Wheatcroft collection at Donnington.The third is in the states and part of Jacque Littlefields collection.

Bugger. Was just about to be a smartarse and comment on the road wheels not looking right! Anyone remember the film Kelly's Heroes? The Tigers in that look like they are built on T-34s. They look OK, but the dimensions are wrong. The T55 is wider so suits a Tiger mock-up better.

There is a King Tiger in the tank sheds at the Defence College of Management and Technology at Shrivenham. It is absoulutely massive. There is a Challenger 1 prototype (Shir Iran 2) in the same shed and it is dwarfed by the Tiger.

[ZR1cliff]

A flail tank, used for finding and detonating mines. Alegedly first used by the British in WW2.