PDA

View Full Version : Tanks and armor quiz (medium level)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

pdf27
08-16-2014, 09:08 AM
It took a while... Is it British super heavy tank A1E1?
Looks rather like it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_A1E1_Independent#mediaviewer/File:Bovington_022_Independent_1.jpg

Churchill
08-16-2014, 10:14 AM
Yup!. I figured I could trick you a bit by showing a picture of the back corner instead of the front.

tankgeezer
08-16-2014, 07:55 PM
Also called the Independent. I always liked the 4 machine gun turrets design, now that's multi-tasking..

navyson
08-18-2014, 06:47 AM
Dang! Should have just gone to Wikipedia, I hunted all over to find it! Here's one:
7166

navyson
08-24-2014, 05:55 AM
Bump!

Nickdfresh
08-24-2014, 09:01 AM
Gosh! :D

Churchill
08-24-2014, 12:38 PM
Oh crap, I completely forgot!

That vehicle looks familiar... I think its been featured in this quiz before, but I'm too lazy to go though all the pages to find out...

Anyway, its the Schofield tank. Pretty innovative, good job Kiwis.

navyson
08-24-2014, 03:53 PM
Yeppers! Schofield 1.

Churchill
08-24-2014, 11:07 PM
What's this?

7168

pdf27
08-25-2014, 08:16 AM
I'm pretty sure that's the hull from a Soviet IS-3 series tank, but it doesn't look like any of the SPG variants that went into service. That would also fit in with the long-base rangefinder above what I assume is the Gunner's hatch. Rare prototype?

Churchill
08-25-2014, 10:13 AM
Well, you've got the country of origin correct, however the chassis is incorrect.

JR*
08-28-2014, 06:28 AM
I know it is stating the obvious for some of you, but the scooter-thing on the previous page seems to be a Vespa 150 TAP (or variant), a reinforced version of the civilian Vespa scooter mounted with a US-made M20 75mm recoilless rifle. This thing was produced by France in the 1950s, and was conceived as a means of providing paratroopers with a light, inexpensive, but mobile and hard-hitting antitank weapon. You know, when I first saw this thing, I thought it might be an Italian weapon - Italians are very keen on scooters to this day. Certainly would be very useful in Roman traffic ... Best regards, JR.

tankgeezer
08-28-2014, 08:59 AM
Indeed! :)

Churchill
09-01-2014, 11:58 AM
Any other guesses?

navyson
09-01-2014, 03:36 PM
Haven't had a lot of time, still looking. :)

Churchill
09-01-2014, 04:47 PM
Just making sure it isn't forgotten.

navyson
09-09-2014, 07:40 AM
JS-3 Stalin? Looks REALLY close.

Churchill
09-09-2014, 01:32 PM
Nope. This vehicle doesn't have a turret.

JR*
09-10-2014, 06:44 AM
Regarding the Soviet behemoth on the previous page - I was struck by the similarity with the immediate postwar heavy tank, the IS-10, subsequently redesignated the T-10 (when Stalin's death made references to his name suddenly unfashionable - the "last great whale/the last survivor" of the successful Soviet heavy tank series of WW2. So I did a little digging ...

The IS-10/T-10 came into production in the immediate postwar period, and remained in production into the mid-1960s as the Soviets struggled to come up with effective, lighter battle tanks. However, it was based on two interim designs devised towards the end of WW2 - the IS-8 and IS-9. These matured as the production IS-10. However, the Soviets' focus on heavy fighting vehicles suggested to them the possibility of producing a heavy self-propelled gun version of the IS-8/IS-9. The result consisted of two prototype casemate-mounted self-propelled guns - "Obiekt 266" ("Object 266), based on the IS-8 design, and "Obiekt 268", based on the IS-9 design. These clumsy monsters, armed with the ML 20S 155mm gun/howitzer, were never put into production. In spite of the difference in armament, the idea of a "Soviet Jagdtiger" definitely occurs.

The single examples of each of these are preserved in the Russian Tank Museum at Kubinka - and our friend on the previous page looks very much like them, in particular, like Obiekt 268. Could this be correct ? If so, a very, very obscure vehicle - nothing at all to do with the difficulty of getting into Kubinka ... Best regards, JR.

Churchill
09-10-2014, 11:11 AM
Good Job JR, you've got the floor mate.

Kilroy
09-10-2014, 12:09 PM
7178
This may be a easy one but take a guess.

Churchill
09-10-2014, 11:14 PM
http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-armor/M33+prime+mover.html

Maybe you shouldn't leave the name of the tank as the image name.

JR, floor is yours.

JR*
09-11-2014, 06:59 AM
7180

Not good at this. Oh well ... what are these ? Best regards, JR.

navyson
09-11-2014, 07:48 AM
Tortuga "tank" from Venezuela?

navyson
09-11-2014, 07:51 AM
Maybe you shouldn't leave the name of the tank as the image name..

Ha-ha! I've done that before here on the quiz!

JR*
09-11-2014, 09:42 AM
Navyson - bang on; the Venezuelan "Turtle". This thing was "designed" and produced by one Tomás Pacanins (named it would appear after a distinguished Venezuelan physician; not sure whether related) at the shipyard at Venezuela's principal Pacific oil port, Puerto Cabello. Recipe for a "Turtle" - take one 1934 6 by 4 Ford truck; mount ungainly cone-shaped armour skin; fit hand-cranked rotating turret carrying one .303 air-cooled machine-gun and ... that's just about it. One interesting refinement - the rear pairs of wheels are linked by caterpillar track, making this, technically, a half-tracked armoured car.

Venezuela produced 12 of these fearsome beasts in 1934, of which 5 were exhibited in a military parade. The general consensus seems to be that they were a response to a fear that neighbouring Colombia might have aggressive intentions towards Venezuela following its "victory" over Peru in the Colombia-Peru "war" of 1932 - although Colombia (a notoriously fractious and unstable country) was going through a period of relative peace and quiet at the time, notwithstanding border incidents all round. Perhaps just as well that the Colombians did not attack; Venezuelan armour experts have assessed the vehicle as clumsy and difficult to manoeuvre (owing in large part to the burden placed on the basic Ford truck by the ungainly armoured "skirt", and near-enough blind as far as exterior visibility was concerned. One is inclined to conclude that this was designed as a demonstration/intimidation vehicle - but probably not a very effective one.

Owing to my woeful Spanish, I have been unable to establish certainty on this - but I believe that a number survive in the possession of the Venezuelan Army. Nor can I identify any indication that they were ever used in action - although it is a remote possibility, since the late-1940s saw in a lengthy period of violent instability in Venezuela, almost worthy at some stages of Japan in the late Middle Ages. In such circumstances, even oddities like this might have some use ... Best regards, and thanks, JR.

Kilroy
09-11-2014, 09:46 AM
http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-armor/M33+prime+mover.html

Maybe you shouldn't leave the name of the tank as the image name.

JR, floor is yours.

Well after all it was my first time trying this and I didn't know that would be a possibility. Rookie mistake and it an't going to happen again. lolz

tankgeezer
09-11-2014, 12:27 PM
Don't let it trouble you Kilroy, you'll get the hang of it. The way this game works is that who ever answers correctly has to post another mystery vehicle for everyone to identify. Each successive winner then posting yet another mystery. It does help alot to rename the image file, I usually change them to something nonsensical.

Churchill
09-11-2014, 06:01 PM
Yup. I've messed up doing that too, it isn't that big of a deal, just be sure to remember to do it.

navyson
09-15-2014, 08:26 AM
What is this?
7181

Kilroy
09-15-2014, 09:51 AM
I believe that tank is the object 430 or the object 140?

JR*
09-15-2014, 12:02 PM
... or, perhaps, Obiekt 775 (or O.780 - very similar.). This was an experimental, ultra-low profile member of the prototype series deriving from the T-64 battle tank. It was armed with a 125mm rocket-firing gun - which may have compensated to some extent for the very limited capacity to depress the gun owing to the tank's very low profile (a disadvantage shared by most mid-Cold War I "coffee-cup turret", low-profile battle tanks. I understand that a number of these oddities were manufactured in production conditions, but whether they were deployed, I know not. If I am correct, this beauty is preserved at Kubinka. Yours from Beria's Basement, JR.

navyson
09-15-2014, 05:07 PM
JR* is correct! You have the floor sir!

tankgeezer
09-15-2014, 08:22 PM
Seems everyone of means was experimenting with missile tanks. Seems also that they all came to the same conclusion..

JR*
09-16-2014, 05:48 AM
7183

An easy one (only sort of thing I can come up with, really ...) JR.

Kilroy
09-16-2014, 09:55 AM
Taking a wild guess saying its going to be the British Churchill vii. Which was a huge upgrade from the pervious version the Churchill I. For a sec I was thinking of the Russians version the modified Churchill I (which of course was the Churchill iii)

JR*
09-16-2014, 10:27 AM
Not exactly, Kilroy - but close ! Best regards, JR.

tankgeezer
09-16-2014, 10:35 AM
I'll have a go with the Black Prince. Looks to have a 17 pdr gun, and appears slightly larger than the standard production Churchills.

JR*
09-16-2014, 11:14 AM
Yes - the A43 Infantry Tank, "Black Prince" or "Super Churchill". The design process of this vehicle started late in 1943. The intention was to produce a vehicle that combined the 17 pounder HV gun with armour sufficient at least to live in open field with the Panther and Tiger - something that, for example, the Sherman Firefly could not do. As a heavy (British) infantry tank, it is not surprising that it shared much of the technology of the successful later Churchill models. Engineering problems relating to the fitting of the 17 pounder gun and to the powerplant delayed production until early 1945; by then, the powerplant problem was still not at all solved. Six pre-production models were produced by the Vauxhall company in any case. However since, by this stage, the superior Centurion model was close to coming on line, the "Black Prince" project was dropped, and the tank never entered production. Away you go ... Best regards, JR.

leccy
09-16-2014, 05:25 PM
Taking a wild guess saying its going to be the British Churchill vii. Which was a huge upgrade from the pervious version the Churchill I. For a sec I was thinking of the Russians version the modified Churchill I (which of course was the Churchill iii)

There was no specific Soviet version of the Churchill tank, the Mk III and Mk IV differed in turret detail (Mk III welded turret with 6pdr, Mk IV cast turret with 6pdr), the Soviets received both Mk's as well as some Mk II I believe. Both were common use tanks in the British forces.

Mk II was a cast turret with 2pdr gun and did away with the hull mounted 3" howitzer.

Only in WoT do they have the Mk III as a Soviet only Mark

tankgeezer
09-16-2014, 05:57 PM
Here's an oddball for you guys to ponder.

Kilroy
09-17-2014, 11:50 AM
After failing three times in a row (lolz). I believe this is the T69 which was developed on the basis of experimental medium tank T42 thought never had mass production. (note: I only know very surfaced information because of the little reading I do and world of tanks, so sorry if my information is a little off. I like to study about airborne units a lot more than anything else.) .........gosh dammit

tankgeezer
09-17-2014, 01:40 PM
Well, keep looking, this game can take some time to get good at. (I've been at it for years, still not good at it) it's not the T-69. I do admit the images are less than optimal. I was expecting some other well known vehicles to be mistaken for this one.

Churchill
09-17-2014, 02:02 PM
Hmm... Looks like a sketch of the T-71 American light tank... But the turret looks like the French AMX-13 series turrets...

tankgeezer
09-17-2014, 02:10 PM
So near, and yet so far Churchill old shoe, it is not the T-71.

Churchill
09-17-2014, 03:34 PM
Curses, foiled again! XD

tankgeezer
09-17-2014, 03:52 PM
Its all in the details, dig a bit deeper, you'll find it. (And here I thought this would be an easy one.) I chose this one because it could be so easily mistaken .

navyson
09-18-2014, 08:04 AM
Is it the L-7 series experimental tank?

tankgeezer
09-18-2014, 08:49 AM
Good work Navyson, the L-7 was the last of a series of designs by the Detroit Arsenal for a light Tank. One interesting feature was that it used an auto loader with it's main gun. I cede the floor to the honorable gentleman from Texas.

Kilroy
09-18-2014, 09:52 AM
Umph I really though it looked like a T69 it seems to somewhat resembles the structure of the L-7 right? (otherwise I am just crazy for thinking that)
I enjoy to keep trying and not succeeding at it; since then one of you gents corrected me and give a little more information out, and in that case I learn a little more each day. So in all honesty thanks guys!

tankgeezer
09-18-2014, 10:28 AM
Umph I really though it looked like a T69 it seems to somewhat resembles the structure of the L-7 right? (otherwise I am just crazy for thinking that)
I enjoy to keep trying and not succeeding at it; since then one of you gents corrected me and give a little more information out, and in that case I learn a little more each day. So in all honesty thanks guys!
The Turret is similar in appearance, but it is a heavy tank. If you compare the running gear of the T-69 to that of the L-7 (light tank, 17 tons) the difference can be seen. Sometimes its the smallest detail that identifies one from the other. Pic of T-69, and L-7. You're doing fine Kilroy, keep at it.

tankgeezer
09-18-2014, 10:42 AM
One very good example of similarity between two very different Tanks is the Soviet T-54, and T-62. on the field the only real differences in appearance is the location of the Bore Evacuator and the gap between road wheel sets.
On the 54, the Bore evacuator is placed at the muzzle end of the gun tube, and the road wheel gap is between the front two road wheels. On the 62, the Evacuator is located more mid tube, and the gap is at the rear of the road wheel sets.
Learning all of these details takes a fair bit of time, which is why this game is so much fun, you get to learn as you go. If only U.S. Public schools worked as well... :mrgreen:

Kilroy
09-18-2014, 10:52 AM
One very good example of similarity between two very different Tanks is the Soviet T-54, and T-62. on the field the only real differences in appearance is the location of the Bore Evacuator and the gap between road wheel sets.
On the 54, the Bore evacuator is placed at the muzzle end of the gun tube, and the road wheel gap is between the front two road wheels. On the 62, the Evacuator is located more mid tube, and the gap is at the rear of the road wheel sets.
Learning all of these details takes a fair bit of time, which is why this game is so much fun, you get to learn as you go. If only U.S. Public schools worked as well... :mrgreen:

I though of the similarity because on world of tanks the have the T69 ( maybe it was the t71) similarly design or at least has a similar structure of the L-7. So that's why I choices to pick that tank. Since thats how it looked like in the game.

tankgeezer
09-18-2014, 12:40 PM
The T-69 eventually morphed into the M-47 Patton, had the same Hull etc. quite a large vehicle having rear drive. The T-71 was far closer to the L-7, both of which had front drive, but somewhat different suspensions. The T-71 may have been a later revision of the original L-7 design. You're showing yourself to be a thinker Kilroy, thats all you need in this game, well, patience to go through bunches of information looking for the target vehicle always helps too. :)

Kilroy
09-19-2014, 09:44 AM
Thank you and I agree!

Nickdfresh
09-19-2014, 06:01 PM
The T-69 eventually morphed into the M-47 Patton, had the same Hull etc. quite a large vehicle having rear drive. The T-71 was far closer to the L-7, both of which had front drive, but somewhat different suspensions. The T-71 may have been a later revision of the original L-7 design. You're showing yourself to be a thinker Kilroy, thats all you need in this game, well, patience to go through bunches of information looking for the target vehicle always helps too. :)

The T-71 almost seems like an AMX-13 in concept, maybe with a bigger gun and more power. But of course light tanks were largely abandoned with the exception of the M-41, which never really took fire in American service. Though, it seems to be a very successful design for militaries in various parts of the work requiring lighter armor with various upgrades...

tankgeezer
09-20-2014, 02:12 PM
It is a bit odd Nick that the L-7, the T-71, and the AMX-13 closely resemble each other. I looked up the AMX, and the French were working on it beginning in 1946. The L-7 was the last of its series proposed by the Detroit Arsenal at the 1st Questionmark conference in April of 1952. The T-71 was developed from 1952-1953. These last two, (though possibly all 3, ) were envisioned as light enough to be air dropped. The Main guns, and armor were reported to be equal to that of the M-41.
This begs the question of the U.S. making use of the French designs as foundations for the L series, and T-71 Vehicles. (even though most of the earlier L series did not have the oscillating Turret) Some small design differences aside, they are all fairly birds of a feather. Left to Right: AMX-13, T-71, L-7

Churchill
09-24-2014, 11:04 PM
So... Who's turn to post is it?

tankgeezer
09-25-2014, 12:59 AM
Navyson has the Honors.

navyson
09-25-2014, 07:06 AM
Sorry gents, still looking, there are only so many tanks out there! :mrgreen:

tankgeezer
09-25-2014, 08:38 AM
Take your time, the weirder, the better.. :)

Churchill
10-23-2014, 01:47 PM
*lurks*

Nickdfresh
10-24-2014, 09:06 AM
Alright, I'll throw one up. :) This is probably easy, and no it is not a silly photochop :mrgreen:

JR*
10-24-2014, 10:51 AM
I wouldn't say exactly easy. It does look like one of the T5 experimental series (T5, Phase III ?) part of an experimental series that led eventually to the US M3 (Lee/Grant) and M4 (Sherman) medium tanks. Hard to deal with those bristling guns ... JR.

Nickdfresh
10-24-2014, 12:22 PM
Close JR*, but no cigar sir :)

tankgeezer
10-24-2014, 05:40 PM
After resorting to my much used Crystal Ball, I call it the (alleged) M-15A Gun Motor Carriage. (still looks fake...) :mrgreen:

Nickdfresh
10-24-2014, 05:52 PM
You are correct sir!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4s5pmFL_ZlQ/S9YLLXGX4qI/AAAAAAAADtQ/lmtZcnrdHHM/s1600/carnac+the+magnificent+johnny+carson+amazing+kresk in+www.motivationalpostersonline.blogspot.com+moti vational+posters+inspiratiponal++hot+funny+comedy+ comedian+blog+classic+bloggers+tv+%283%29.jpg

It indeed does look fake and almost like a parody, but was in fact designed to be a mobile antiaircraft vehicle with the large number of guns serving to eliminate the need for a traversing turret theoretically making it more effective. It turned out to be a waste of time and pretty much useless and only one prototype was ever built and was quickly scrapped after the war...

tankgeezer
10-24-2014, 08:55 PM
Thank you Nick. There was something about it being at least in part remote controlled, though given the state of that technology, I can't imagine how it could be done. But it does show someone was thinking outside the box. Looks like it should be called the Iron Porcupine. Let me divine some difficult example for the next round..

tankgeezer
10-24-2014, 09:11 PM
Here you go,

Churchill
10-24-2014, 11:42 PM
The Chinese WZ-111 model 1-4? With the testing turret?

tankgeezer
10-25-2014, 12:36 AM
I thought it was a Rice cooker, but yep, that'll do..

Churchill
10-25-2014, 03:04 PM
Cheers mate.

What's this?
7211

tankgeezer
10-27-2014, 12:08 PM
Took me a while, It's a VK3701 "Sturer Emil". (Kubinka has all the best toys...)

Churchill
10-27-2014, 01:08 PM
Yup! Glad it wasn't instant. Have fun.

tankgeezer
10-27-2014, 10:11 PM
I'll have something tomorrow. :cool:

tankgeezer
10-28-2014, 04:09 PM
This one is far too odd to exclude.

Kilroy
10-29-2014, 10:08 AM
It believe that the Chrysler TV-8 medium tank. Developed in the 50's it never hit any front lines dude to some problems with something (ha don't know what). It was suppose to be the first nuclear power tank. Suppose to be a medium tank that was design to fight on land and amphibious warfare. There wasn't anything different that made it special but the floating it could do. (I believe I got it right this time!?) apologies JR, I wasn't to sure on the development stages for the tank. Thanks for the correction.

JR*
10-29-2014, 10:45 AM
I would second Kilroy on this. Slightly difficult photo, since the foreshortening does not give a full impression of the elongated "Alien-head" style turret. Actually, I thought this never got beyond the "concept tank" stage - they actually built one ? Best regards, JR.

tankgeezer
10-29-2014, 11:00 AM
Give that man a Kewpie Doll ! You are correct Kilroy, it is the nuclear powered* TV-8. The history of this vehicle (not certain if this is an actual protoype, or a concept mock up.) is worth reading. http://thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/the_chrysler_tv.html

* one of three possible drive systems.

JR*
10-29-2014, 11:55 AM
Followed the link - very interesting. In environmental terms, this could, indeed, be a very dirty vehicle when knocked out. I am still not sure that this got beyond the mock-up stage - but this example could be a pretty convincing (if particularly weird) mock-up.

BTW - the "dirty weapons" notion reminds me of another such weapon of the past. British/New Zealand Left-wing cartoonist Steve Bell drafted a cartoon strip back in the era of Reagan, in which a particularly dim candidate for the post of Secretary of Defense is being quizzed by the Senate Defense Committee. Senator - "What are your views on the Neutron Bomb ?". Answers Dimwit, "I believe, Senator, that it is the replacement for the Oldtron Bomb ...". Yours from the MADhouse, JR.

tankgeezer
10-29-2014, 06:02 PM
I guess that if viewed through the eyes of cold war NATO, the contamination from destroyed TV-8's would be nearly invisible against that of the Nuclear Battlefield everyone expected Europe to become if major war had erupted. And humor aside, (it was a good joke too, sounds like something Sen. Thomas O'Neall might have said) the Neutron warhead was a needed deterrent tool in the NATO utility belt. I for one am very pleased that none of them were ever needed in Europe. I also hope none of them will find use in the Middle East.
At any rate, the Floor recognizes Kilroy ! Find something nifty..

Kilroy
10-30-2014, 09:43 AM
To be honest I really don't know anything about the tank, I just remember seeing it on Google search when was looking at tanks to do a little studying on. (though I didn't study anything on that tank) lolz. I find a tank of my choice later in the hour. (still a schoolboy and I cram time in to visiting here)

JR*
10-30-2014, 09:55 AM
Doing well, Kilroy - keep on truckin' ... JR.

Kilroy
10-30-2014, 09:57 AM
7215
went on a little digging exploration for this one. Good luck mates!

JR*
10-30-2014, 11:28 AM
A tricky one. Amphibious, clearly. Although there are some features that look anomalous to me, I would suggest that this is a Vickers Armstrong Amphibious Light Tank. Vickers produced two prototypes of this vehicle; this looks like the A4E12 (LIE2) version. This was a "commercial tank" project. It was offered to the British Army, but they were unimpressed with various aspects, including ease of control, light armour, light armament ... They may not have been too impressed by its amphibious abilities, either - I have seen a few photos of amphibious trials of this vehicle, and they would not inspire confidence. I would infinitely have preferred to drive under a swamp in a T-34. I believe that Vickers - after all, a commercial tank manufacturer - sold a small number of production versions to Nationalist China. No idea how they fared there - perhaps it is as well that the traditional way to get across the Yellow River was swimming ... Best regards, JR.

leccy
10-30-2014, 02:11 PM
Quite nimble really - a little bit rear heavy when it swims

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/tanks-swim-now/query/Swimming+tank

tankgeezer
10-30-2014, 03:13 PM
What a cool little Tankette. Agree about the balance issue, one good tip, and that might be it. Would be good for some fishing though. :)

Churchill
10-30-2014, 04:19 PM
Pretty sure that's what it is.

tankgeezer
10-30-2014, 10:04 PM
Would be good if ,,,,

Kilroy
10-31-2014, 09:49 AM
Sorry mates that it took so long. I'm only on in the mornings unfortunately but yes JR is correct! Nice job JR and now it's your turn.7216

JR*
10-31-2014, 10:28 AM
7218

Thanks, Kilroy. I'll try another oddity. What might this be ? Best regards, JR.

leccy
10-31-2014, 11:04 AM
The answer is written on the side

TRACKLAYER C.L.B. 75

Made by CL Best in 1916 or 1917 (some debate over the years about it being a Holt 75).

http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/usa/best75.htm

JR*
10-31-2014, 11:54 AM
Yes, leccy my friend, that is what it is. This is in fact a mockup, and an example of one of the tank's origins in early US agricultural tractors. The attached image shows how it was supposed to work. The only photos I know of that exist are supposed to relate to manoeuvers by the California National Guard in 1917. In any event, the US Army does not seem to have been impressed, and the project was not taken up. No production versions were outcoming. Best regards and over to you, JR.

7219

leccy
10-31-2014, 12:19 PM
Just to see if anyone knows or can drag out information about this beast and what particular use it was intended.

7220

tankgeezer
11-01-2014, 11:37 AM
Driveline, and suspension components of the M-4 series vehicles were commonly available for civilian use. The machine shown in the image is not a Sherman, and probably not Military,but commercial. Just a fair number of components (early ones) used to produce a commercial construction machine, not easy to be sure, but this looks like a Bulldozer minus the Blade, and side arm bits. Also, it has only two suspension stations per side, and one of them is reversed. All M-3, and M-4 Hulls had three stations per side. The square mount shown in the image could be the mounting point for the Blade, and it's arms. As to what it was called, so far, no idea. Many Sherman parts were used to make Logging, and other construction machinery, due to their versatility, and low prices as surplus after the war.

Churchill
11-01-2014, 09:41 PM
I want the bottom left one. I'll trade you my Subaru for it.

tankgeezer
11-02-2014, 12:34 AM
If it's a Subaru 360 you might have a deal.... ;)

leccy
11-02-2014, 02:42 AM
Driveline, and suspension components of the M-4 series vehicles were commonly available for civilian use. The machine shown in the image is not a Sherman, and probably not Military,but commercial. Just a fair number of components (early ones) used to produce a commercial construction machine, not easy to be sure, but this looks like a Bulldozer minus the Blade, and side arm bits. Also, it has only two suspension stations per side, and one of them is reversed. All M-3, and M-4 Hulls had three stations per side. The square mount shown in the image could be the mounting point for the Blade, and it's arms. As to what it was called, so far, no idea. Many Sherman parts were used to make Logging, and other construction machinery, due to their versatility, and low prices as surplus after the war.

Oh it is a Sherman - heavily re-worked and produced for a specific purpose post war, I will give a clue in that it was produced by Vickers using Sherman III hulls and parts.

tankgeezer
11-02-2014, 05:29 PM
Can't wait to hear the story behind this one,, ( I bet it's the SP-III Tactical Haggis cooker) :)

leccy
11-05-2014, 04:51 AM
Maybe it is a little obscure, produced by Vickers for the British ill fated 'Groundnut Scheme' in Africa

It was called the Shervick, at the time no commercial bulldozer could cope with the particular type of scrubland in the area so Vickers were asked to produce one - the Shervick (for which an order for 500 was initially placed later increased to 1000 but it is not known how many were actually made). It was an interim design while Vickers developed their own from scratch (Vickers Vigour) which saw limited use as it was powerful but complicated and expensive.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/groundnt.htm
http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-23-cp-18.pdf
http://www.whp-journals.co.uk/GE/Esselborn.pdf

Churchill
11-05-2014, 11:54 AM
Good stuff.

Churchill
11-09-2014, 11:41 PM
Uh... I think its Leccy's turn. Have at it mate.

tankgeezer
11-18-2014, 08:31 PM
Since Leccy has not posted, allow me to keep the ball rolling with this entry. Now, this may, or may not be very easy, but in any event there is a premium offered to the successful answer.
I have a copy of the book American Sniper written by Navy Seal Chris Kyle, and it goes to the first correct answer posted. Sent to the winner at no cost to them. (just need an address to send it to) The book is in English, so if you win it, I hope you can read it.. :)

Churchill
11-18-2014, 09:33 PM
Curse that rear view... *shakes fist*

tankgeezer
11-18-2014, 10:44 PM
It's crude perhaps, but effective....:mrgreen:

11-19-2014, 05:35 AM
Heya all!

That would be the French experimental Char G1R, rolled out on 11 September 1939. Another fine example of the "too little, too late" syndrome!

7236

Kilroy
11-19-2014, 11:56 AM
Some of those French tanks are pretty damn neat and seem like they would be useful. To bad the French had to surrender early in the war ;-;

tankgeezer
11-19-2014, 01:19 PM
Ladies, and Gentlemen, we have a winner ! Malarz_Russ is the lucky winner. The G1R came in several iterations, and is sufficiently featureless which makes it a bit more difficult to pin down. Nicely done! PM sent.

Churchill
11-19-2014, 03:47 PM
Holy hell, I didn't even realise it was Malarz! How've you been, back to attack the quiz?

tankgeezer
11-19-2014, 04:50 PM
Always a pleasure to have Malarz around, welcome in from the cold.

11-24-2014, 12:20 AM
Thanx gents, for the kind greetings!

Here's my humble offering...

7245

What is it?

wingsofwrath
11-25-2014, 04:00 AM
That, my friends, would be a PZInż 303 (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZIn%C5%BC_303)Polish armoured car built in 1938 and based on the Polski FIAT 118A. Although successful in tests, it never saw mass production, due to a certain invasion by a neighbouring country...

Please note that there were several prototypes - armoured, open topped and halftrack, for use as an artillery tractor. The mystery photo is of the armoured version, while the picture in the wiki is the open topped. Here is the artillery tractor version, PZInż 222 (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZIn%C5%BC_222#mediaviewer/File:PZIn%C5%BC_222.jpg).

11-25-2014, 08:13 PM
You are CORRECT sir!

Quite a good looking series of vehicles, they were unfortunately "nipped in the bud" as WoW said.

Take it away WingsofWrath... we await your puzzler!

tankgeezer
11-25-2014, 09:22 PM
If a rumble seat is an available option, I'll take one... :mrgreen:

wingsofwrath
11-26-2014, 05:15 AM
Thanks!

So, how about this little beastie?

7246

JR*
11-26-2014, 07:32 AM
I am getting an "invalid link" message on this. BTW - regarding the PZInz 303 - nice one. One possible key to this was identifying the civilian vehicle from which it was derived. I must confess that Polish origin did not occur to me. Very best regards, JR.

tankgeezer
11-26-2014, 09:10 AM
Thanks!

So, how about this little beastie?

7246 Wings, could you reload the Link, or image Please? If that does not correct the problem, I'll contact a Lord High Admin to try to fix the trouble.

Churchill
11-26-2014, 10:13 AM
Looks like an invalid attachment, might want to try again mate.

Edit: D'oh! Didn't check the next page.

wingsofwrath
11-27-2014, 03:31 AM
Sorry about that, I don't know what happened to the attachment - here it is again:

JR*
11-27-2014, 04:30 AM
Polish PzInz 160 ? While the project was not pursued beyond the stage of producing one prototype, the Polish 4TP light tank project influenced a number of later Polish designs. As with the individual project, not all were pursued. The PzInz 160 was a project to create a tank destroyer by casemate-mounting a 37mm Bofors gun on a new superstructure design, all mounted on a 4TP chassis. As far as I know, this never got into production, either - but a prototype or prototypes were made. Best regards, JR.

wingsofwrath
11-27-2014, 05:22 AM
Yup, spot on, this is indeed the PzInz 160. Your turn!

JR*
11-27-2014, 09:29 AM
OK - how about this ?

7249

tankgeezer
11-27-2014, 09:49 AM
That is a (or perhaps the) Tritton Trench crosser.

JR*
11-27-2014, 10:21 AM
Yes, tankgeezer - bang-on. As far as I understand it, this strange beast - trialled early in 1915 - in effect carried its own trench-crossing bridge of girders on a circular chain "road". One half (the one with huge wheels) was supposed to span and cross the trench (braced by the rear secion), then circulate the girders to the rear, where they would be placed in the trench and allow the rest of the vehicle to cross. And so on. At least that is how I think it was supposed to work. The big wheel/power plant element of the vehicle was a standard agricultural tractor/traction engine - not surprising, as its main designer, William Tritton, Chairman of the engineering company William Foster & Co., Lincoln, England, was a skilled agricultural engineer and a member of Britain's secret "Landship Committee", sponsored by Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty. Two trials in the early part of 1915 indicated that, while the concept basically "worked", the vehicle was very clumsy to operate, very slow and incapable of clearing barbed wire - an important consideration at the time. Also, it was not much help to the crew and Poor Bloody Infantry required to operate it against enemy fire when encountered. As a result, the project was abandoned. However, its importance in the development of the early tank was to persuade Tritton and other members of the Landship Committee that the various projects already considered for wheeled "trench crossers" and "wire clearers" were a dead end. The future was in enclosed, armed, tracked vehicles. I am really out of my league here. In any event - over to you, my friend. Best regards, JR.

tankgeezer
11-27-2014, 12:14 PM
Thanks JR, I remembered that Rube Goldbergish machine from a book I have packed away someplace. Here is the next one.

wingsofwrath
11-28-2014, 05:34 AM
That would be the French "Fortin Aubriot-Gabet" fro 1915, one of the early experimental tank wanabees from WW1.

It's interesting that it's electric, and it was based on the Gruson "Fahrpanzer" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrpanzer), an earlier, unpowered, attempt by Germany to create a mobile fortification system...
Amusingly, my country was one of the largest pre-ww1 users of the Gruson system and I've just finished illustrating a book on the subject (it will be published early next year, most likely)

tankgeezer
11-28-2014, 08:45 AM
How right you are Wings. The Battleship Car was an interesting idea, but was more likely to defeat the enemy by inducing paralytic laughter than anything else. The Sword passes to you, neighbor. (And keep us all up on the book, would be good to get a copy, hope it's published in English too) :)

wingsofwrath
11-29-2014, 10:54 AM
Thank you!

The book is part of a series published by the Military Museum of Bucharest in the style of the Osprey Publishing "Man at Arms" or "New Vanguard", and this issue will be about the Sereth Fortified Line built by Romania to defend against the looming Russian threat on the eve of WW1, the only large scale application of the Shumann fortification system.

It will be in Romanian, with bilingual Romanian-English caption on all the photographs and on the eight full colour plates, which is the bit I've worked on. This would be the second such book I've worked on, the other being about WW1 Austro-Hungarian Siege Artillery in the collection of the Military Museum of Bucharest.

But coming back to the subject of this thread, here is my little offer for tonight:

tankgeezer
11-30-2014, 05:56 PM
An interesting but apt combination, it is described as theM3A3 « Stuart-PaK » - field modification of captured Stuart tank armed in 7,5 cm PaK 40 L/46 .

wingsofwrath
12-01-2014, 07:55 AM
Right you are!

It is indeed one of the five American M3A3 Stuart light tanks belonging to the Yugoslav 1st Tank Brigade that were upgraded by mounting a captured German 7,5 cm Pak 40 anti tank gun in a casemate made from the armour of destroyed SdKfz 251s.

The Sword passes back to you yet again.

tankgeezer
12-01-2014, 12:05 PM
Thanks Wings!! I'm going to get out my Crystal Ball to find something so arcane that only someone with good scrying skills could find it.. :) I'll post it later today.

tankgeezer
12-01-2014, 04:57 PM
Alright, after much and furious searching, here is the next entry.

wingsofwrath
12-02-2014, 12:48 AM
No luck I'm afraid, that's another one I can identify on sight - it's the Japanese "Experimental Amphibious Armoured Car Sumida AMP" built by Ishikawajima in 1931. One was built, but performance was very poor, so it was abandoned and the Ishikawajima company moved on to developing the Type 92 tankette instead.

EDIT: I am pretty sure of my identification, so, in order to keep this rolling, here is the next mystery tank... err... thingie:

12-02-2014, 01:14 AM
Well Great Jumpin' Jehosaphat... it's the Baker 8 x 8 "Jumping Tank" armored car!

Designed to use high speed and highly sprung running gear, the vehicle was to literally leap over various obstacles and other impediments that would bring more humdrum fighting vehicles to a halt. Armament was to be a 3" (75 / 76mm) gun. A 4 x 4 version was also "imagined. Neither version made it past the model stage, however the basic concept was supposedly "proven".

WoW's picture shows it crouched for a jump, here it is in normal drive height:

7255

wingsofwrath
12-02-2014, 01:20 AM
heheh. I didn't know Jehosaphat liked to jump - that side of him never made it into the scriptures XD

But yeah, mr. malarz, you are most certainly correct, so the board belongs to you.

tankgeezer
12-02-2014, 06:58 AM
You are correct Wings , it is the Sumida AMP. Sumida was the name of the producing Company before it became Ishikawajima (assuming that what I read was correct) I think my Crystal Ball needs a fresh battery :)

12-03-2014, 12:00 AM
Thank you sir!

Keeping with the "too many tires" theme, what is this lil' honey?

7258

wingsofwrath
12-03-2014, 01:02 PM
That, my dear Mr. Malarz is the Cook Brothers Experimental Desert Vehicle from 1942, also known as "Cook’s Cozy Cabin" because of its box-like shape.

Interestingly, it had two Cadillac eight-cylinder water-cooled engines, one for each four wheeled bogie, and pivoted the front bogie in order to steer, something that can be discerned from the picture.

It was never produced in quantity and it served as the basis for another experimental vehicle, the T55 Gun Motor Carriage, which was roughly the same thing, only shorter and with a 3-inch AT gun at the front

12-03-2014, 10:41 PM
You are CORRECT sir!

Not a bad looking vehicle, the T55E1 was a little more menacing with its gun barrel protruding from the front end like a unicorn horn. Here it is...

7259

Take it away WoW!

wingsofwrath
12-04-2014, 05:21 AM
Thank you, Mr. Malarz.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think its time we kicked things up a notch, since the last few enigmas I proposed were all found out in, quite literally, five seconds flat.

For this I am delving deeper into my files and bringing to you a vehicle which should prove suitably elusive. Good hunting!

DavidW
12-04-2014, 08:54 PM
If this is the medium level quiz, I would hate to see the hard one!!!

Churchill
12-04-2014, 09:03 PM
This has become the hard quiz, joke is on you! ah hah hah

tankgeezer
12-04-2014, 10:19 PM
The seventh roadwheel set is interesting, awful close together though, won't do well in thick mud.

12-05-2014, 01:44 AM
Ah, that's an easy one!

wingsofwrath
12-05-2014, 01:51 AM
If this is the medium level quiz, I would hate to see the hard one!!!

Yeah, sorry 'bout that, I'm afraid that at this point we pretty much exhausted all the "medium" enigmas.

Also, we ended up knowing a lot of reeeealy obscure vehicles simply by trawling the deepest reaches of the internet for something suitable to post, so we now know most of them by sight and the quiz is no longer challenging.

So it was either make it a bit harder, or start going for misdirection, such as posting a picture of a perfectly ordinary KV1, for example, then stand back and let everybody go through all the KV variants to find what is so unusual about it, all while completely missing the obvious...


The seventh roadwheel set is interesting, awful close together though, won't do well in thick mud.

Which is probably why one of the proposed variants for the next incarnation of this vehicle would have only had six roadwheels of a larger diameter, while the others had a lengthened chassis. Sadly, development of this little machine was cut short due to financial reasons, so that never happened.

tom!
12-08-2014, 08:31 PM
Hi.

Romanian TR-125 tank developed from the T-72.

Yours

tom! ;)

tankgeezer
12-08-2014, 09:52 PM
Golly! all the old hands are showing up for this quiz.. Good to have you drop by Tom.

wingsofwrath
12-09-2014, 09:21 AM
It's a fair cop, Guv'nah!

Nice to see you again, Mr. Tom, the next enigma is yours!

It is indeed the TR125, a completely indigenous machine loosely based on the T-72 and fitted with a power plant reverse engineered from that of a Leopard 1. The gun was a locally produced smooth bore 125mm, an upgrade over the TR85's rifled 100mm.
Interestingly, an autoloader was also considered.

Unfortunately, although the machine showed promise, the development was cut short by the 1989 Romanian Revolution, after about 5 prototypes were manufactured. The end of the Cold War also meant defence funds were slashed, and thus the project was abandoned for good.

In the early 2000, instead of continuing development of the TR125 with the proposed TR2000 program (see attachment), the Army High Command decided instead it would be cheaper retrofit the existing fleet of several hundred TR85 (itself derived from the T55) with a new turret and electronics developed in collaboration with the Israelis (Elbit System) to bring it to the TR85M1 standard, all while sticking with the 100mm gun, which makes the current Romanian Army MBT severely undergunned when compared with similar AFVs from other countries.

Of course, as was shown by the recent "Combined Resolve II" exercise which took place in early 2014 at Grafenwoehr, Germany, the TR85M1 is far from useless, being able to occasionally get the drop even on the much vaunted M1A2, but the fact of the matter is the TR125 would have made a much better starting point for a contemporary MBT than the venerable TR580/TR85 series.

Well, such is life.

Onwards with the quiz! I do expect a suitably obscure machine from you, Mr.Tom! I am positively rubbing my hands in anticipation.

12-21-2014, 12:21 AM
.
"Ground control to Major Tom..."

tankgeezer
12-21-2014, 01:13 AM
Been awful quiet in here,,,

JR*
12-23-2014, 09:49 AM
Just to grease the wheels, may I be permitted to break protocol and enter a nice easy one ? Happy Christmas ! JR.

7301

wingsofwrath
12-25-2014, 05:06 PM
Merry Christmas, fellow tank lovers!

Heh. That is indeed an easy one. In fact, I once drew the vehicle pictured, so I will abstain from replying to this just yet.

Suffice to say that the name of this vehicle is incredibly descriptive and that the picture is exactly the one that appears on it's wikipedia entry...

Churchill
12-25-2014, 11:52 PM
Ah, that thing. I feel like we've had it before but I can't remember for certain. I'll give that a shot tomorrow, if its still unsolved by then.

wingsofwrath
12-27-2014, 04:41 AM
We probably had it - I'm certainly not going to try and check through 94 pages of this quiz.

Anyway, what I find really amusing about this thing is how the four men who had to steer the thing were located in different parts of the tank - the driver and the brakesman each had their own armoured cab at the front, on each side of the gun, while the gearsman and engineer resided in the back superstructure, so they had to shout to each other over the sound of the treads and engine, because, obviously, there was no intercom... I bet it must have been an absolute nightmare to drive.

The next incarnation of this vehicle had a more... rational... seating plan, but, alas, as it happens, the war ended and the government lost interest.

Churchill
12-27-2014, 11:32 AM
True.

Is it the Gun Carrier Mark I?

JR*
12-27-2014, 04:37 PM
Yep, Gun Carrier Mk I, this one mounting a 60mm British howitzer. I think about 24 of these early take on a self-propelled gun (more or less) were manufactured but, as far as I know, none made the WW1 battlefield. Best regards, JR.

Churchill
12-27-2014, 06:44 PM
7304

Should be pretty easy.

wingsofwrath
12-28-2014, 06:47 AM
It is actually, since I have a few friends in the Czech army and I've seen one of these in real life - it's a Czechoslovak 152mm SpGH DANA vz.77 self propelled artillery piece, pictured here in Libyan livery, probably during a parade of the Gaddafi era.

It's a pretty nifty piece of kit - a 152mm howitzer on a 8x8 Tatra T815 truck chassis and featuring an innovative autoloader able to load a shell and a cartridge in any elevation of the barrel. In fact, when it was first introduced in 1977 it was one of the world's best SPGs and still remains a very capable system.

Churchill
12-28-2014, 11:10 AM
Yup! Good job WoW.

gumalangi
01-08-2015, 04:29 AM
7304

Should be pretty easy.

ah,. so we have run out WW2 armors? i thought after world of tanks, there are event more bizarre tanks appear during, before and just after WW2 :)

tankgeezer
01-08-2015, 10:34 AM
Just to keep things lively, and moving, I'll put this up for your delectation, and amazement. Sorry for the less than great image.

gumalangi
01-08-2015, 11:37 AM
Christie T4E2 combat car

Churchill
01-08-2015, 01:08 PM
I figured I'd throw something new into the mix. :)

gumalangi
01-08-2015, 07:24 PM
I figured I'd throw something new into the mix. :)

yeah,. should have some variations :)

and its DANA 152 SPG :)

tankgeezer
01-08-2015, 08:02 PM
Christie T4E2 combat car Close enough gumalangi ! its the T-4E1 Geez, I figured it was weird enough to take a day or so to pin down. Good work!

gumalangi
01-08-2015, 08:09 PM
the christie suspension is unmistakeable,. the search starts from there :)
i was confuse of the two,. but the E1 looks got rotating or semi-rotating turret

http://moderndrawings.jexiste.be/WW2Drawings/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/1-USA/02-MediumTanks/Christie/File/Christie.htm

gumalangi
01-08-2015, 08:14 PM
as this should be a medium level quiz,. anyone could solve this?

7317

the file name give a clue :)

tankgeezer
01-08-2015, 10:36 PM
the christie suspension is unmistakeable,. the search starts from there :)
i was confuse of the two,. but the E1 looks got rotating or semi-rotating turret

http://moderndrawings.jexiste.be/WW2Drawings/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/1-USA/02-MediumTanks/Christie/File/Christie.htm
The T-4 Tank has the turret, the E1, and E2 vehicles seem to just have a superstructure, but honestly, I cant tell the difference just by looking at the images in your link. I chose the E1 because I found it in a book, and googled it to get an image I could upload, and the image was labeled E 1. I was hoping the roadwheels would be confusing in that the British used a similar type on some of their tanks, and it had the Christie inspired look of a Soviet design. You folks are just too sharp.. :) I think I'll be needing a better book.. :)

JR*
01-09-2015, 04:26 AM
Polish PZInz160 tank destroyer, I think. This is probably a prototype or mockup since, as far as I know, this type never entered production. It was in fact the failed competitor with the TKS-D tank destroyer type, using the same armament - 37mm Bofors antitank gun (main) with two 7.92mm machine-guns (one forward mounted, one top mounted for antiaircraft use, as seen here). Surviving records on the development of both the PZInz160 and the TKS-D are somewhat patchy; it is not clear why the latter was preferred to the former, as their performance, overall, seems to have been similar (although there were noticeable differences of detail in matters such as track length, ground pressure and fuel consumption). In any event, production of this machine's successful rival was small. While hampered by their very light armor, either of these vehicles, appropriately used, would have been useful little tank destroyers at the start of the war, thanks to their Polish/Bofors 37mm gun. Best regards, JR (emmm ... I have seen this photo before, recently; can't remember where ... JR).

wingsofwrath
01-09-2015, 06:07 AM
I was hoping the roadwheels would be confusing in that the British used a similar type on some of their tanks, and it had the Christie inspired look of a Soviet design. You folks are just too sharp.. :) I think I'll be needing a better book.. :)

Also, a good chunk of those designs also made it onto this board. I remember I posted the M4 Combat Car a while ago and it was guessed right away.

Oh, and let's not forget that if any of you are players of a little game called World of Tanks, the M7 Combat Car was a Christmas gift last year and quite a lot of them can still be seen ingame.

I, for one, got rid of mine, because I wasn't very happy with the feeble punch packed by the .50 cal machinegun when compared to... pretty much everything else, really. I'm also more into long range gunnery from a concealed position, so it definitely didn't fit my playing style.


emmm ... I have seen this photo before, recently; can't remember where ... JR.

Of course you saw it, I posted it a month and a half ago, and it was you who guessed it. XD.
It's on Page 92.

Also, sorry for my lack of activity - I came back from my vacation and I have a lot of projects to finish.

JR*
01-09-2015, 06:16 AM
:oops: Sorry, Wingsofwrath - seem to have had something of a "senior's moment" here. Hope you had a nice break. Best regards, JR.

gumalangi
01-09-2015, 10:48 AM
Polish PZInz160 tank destroyer, I think. This is probably a prototype or mockup since, as far as I know, this type never entered production. It was in fact the failed competitor with the TKS-D tank destroyer type, using the same armament - 37mm Bofors antitank gun (main) with two 7.92mm machine-guns (one forward mounted, one top mounted for antiaircraft use, as seen here). Surviving records on the development of both the PZInz160 and the TKS-D are somewhat patchy; it is not clear why the latter was preferred to the former, as their performance, overall, seems to have been similar (although there were noticeable differences of detail in matters such as track length, ground pressure and fuel consumption). In any event, production of this machine's successful rival was small. While hampered by their very light armor, either of these vehicles, appropriately used, would have been useful little tank destroyers at the start of the war, thanks to their Polish/Bofors 37mm gun. Best regards, JR (emmm ... I have seen this photo before, recently; can't remember where ... JR).

ah,. sorry,. its a repost question after all,. lol,. :) have it a go sir :)

JR*
01-09-2015, 11:06 AM
Thanks, gumalangi. What about this ? Best regards, JR.

7319

gumalangi
01-09-2015, 12:08 PM
Spain,. during civil war,. where tanks and armoured cars were made to available resources. :)

Spanish civil war,. CONSTRUCTORA FIELD Nº2 or Blindado Field Nº2

whichever it was,. but similar picture there is

gumalangi
01-10-2015, 12:45 PM
i know i am right,. sorry for Mr JR for bypassing your confirmation on your post,. so i go ahead with my mysterious pic :)

whasis?
7328

no clue will be given,. as this should be veeery easy :)

Churchill
01-10-2015, 03:34 PM
Looks like a KV1, has turret of KV1, KV1 is too easy...

KV220?

gumalangi
01-10-2015, 10:20 PM
negative :)

tankgeezer
01-11-2015, 08:29 AM
KV-1 model of 1941?

gumalangi
01-11-2015, 10:35 AM
fraid not sir :)

Churchill
01-11-2015, 01:24 PM
Well... How about the Panzerkampfwagen KV-IA 753(r)?

wingsofwrath
01-11-2015, 03:41 PM
Actually, I have a gut feeling that thing is in fact a T-150 or Object 150, a 1941 prototype up-armoured KV-1 (90mm of armour instead of 75).
It was heavier than the standard KV-1, but mounted the same F-32 76mm main gun as it's predecessor. Apparently the prototype saw action at the siege of Leningrad.

Churchill
01-11-2015, 05:19 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about the T-150...

gumalangi
01-11-2015, 08:29 PM
Actually, I have a gut feeling that thing is in fact a T-150 or Object 150, a 1941 prototype up-armoured KV-1 (90mm of armour instead of 75).
It was heavier than the standard KV-1, but mounted the same F-32 76mm main gun as it's predecessor. Apparently the prototype saw action at the siege of Leningrad.

you got the answer right, if you look closely, the other prominent feature that can be seen is the Cuppola, as the regular KV 1 has no cuppola on its turret if you can notice the flat top on its turret cept for the periscopes :)

7331

the thread is yours sir :)

JR*
01-12-2015, 04:13 AM
@gumalangi, re. Spanish monster, no problem, not least because you are bang-on. This vehicle was a result of the reluctance of the Madrid government (increasingly Communist-dominated) to allocate tanks received from the Soviet Union to Catalan Anarchists. Consequently, the Catalans attempted to harness the engineering capacities of Barcelona (not inconsiderable) to manufacture Catalan-built tanks and armored cars. The results were, in limited terms, generally successful, although the engineering firms involved were severely hampered by their inexperience in building armored vehicles. In terms of impact on the battlefield, this was minimal. Catalan-produced armored vehicles were manufactured only in handfuls, and were generally undergunned, under-armored and poor in deployability and maneuverability. Easy meat, in any case, for any half-decent antitank gun - although they might have been useful against the "little tanks", the PzKpfw Is that made up the vast bulk of the limited tank force available to the Nationalists. I should give up, really ... Best regards, JR.

wingsofwrath
01-12-2015, 05:30 AM
Thank you, Mr.Gumalangi!

Ok, what can this thing be?

7332

JR*
01-12-2015, 06:15 AM
Pretty obscure, but I think I have it. Could it be the Motomitragliatrice d'assalto blindata MIAS-ANSALDO, a very strange armored "vehicle" produced by Fiat-Ansaldo apparently as a speculative "commercial tankette" in the 1920s. I use the term "tankette" with some reservations. Ansaldo themselves described it as a "little" ("piccolo") powered armored vehicle guided by a man on foot. I kid you not. If you could see this MIAS from the back, you would see that it doesn't have one. Nor does it have a bottom. The single "crewman" crouched within the open-backed vehicle from the shelter of which he controlled the movement of the thing and operated the armament as he walked, or stumbled, forward. I suppose that, rather than a tankette, one should describe this as a self-propelled machine-gun carrier/mobile pillbox. Doubt whether the "crewmen" would have felt very safe or comfortable. I do not know whether Ansaldo managed to sell many of these oddities; certainly, I am not aware of it having been used in combat, anywhere. Probably just as well ... Best regards, JR.

wingsofwrath
01-13-2015, 02:15 AM
Right you are, Mr. JR!
This is indeed the Ansaldo "MIAS", and it was just as ludicrous an idea as you described.
Your turn to post!

JR*
01-13-2015, 05:51 AM
What about this thing ? JR.

7334

gumalangi
01-13-2015, 08:04 AM
Soukou sagyou ss-ki

JR*
01-13-2015, 09:17 AM
Bang on, Mr G. Japan's much appreciated (at least by the Japanese) armored, tracked utility vehicle, capable of battlefield functions ranging from mine-clearance and eliminating barbed wire (not the peculiar claws) to ... flame-throwing. This was a case of a vehicle that did exactly what it said on the tin, in the sense that it was quite reasonably capable of doing everything it was originally designed to do. It was used as a flame-throwing platform in China (very successfully, it seems), but not for some reason in the Pacific. The Americans seem first to have encountered them in the Philippines (return match); they made a pretty good initial appreciation, classifying it as a "flamethrower tank" (even though there is no indication that it was used for that purpose outside China), but also recognizing its other capacities. All yours. Best regards, JR.

gumalangi
01-13-2015, 06:42 PM
Thank you Mr JR :)

Whasis?
7335

Churchill
01-14-2015, 12:14 AM
Hmm... Russian or American?

Seems kind of light... Maybe airborne?

01-14-2015, 01:42 AM
I won't say what it is, but will say it's crews are noted for their funny looking hats and t-shirts!

wingsofwrath
01-14-2015, 02:22 AM
Heh. Really? No takers? I mean at this point it's pretty clear we all know we're talking about this little thing:

7336

Funny hats indeed!
T-shirts... not that much at the time, but huge now, retroactively. Agricultural and industrial implements on t-shirts just sell really well nowadays, for some reason.

gumalangi
01-14-2015, 05:19 AM
Hmm... Russian or American?

Seems kind of light... Maybe airborne?

you got most of the clues are right :)

Churchill
01-14-2015, 09:52 AM
I know what it is as well, there isn't much fun getting it right all the time though.

I also don't have anything to offer up, so giving the right answer doesn't help me much. :)

leccy
01-14-2015, 12:21 PM
Heh. Really? No takers? I mean at this point it's pretty clear we all know we're talking about this little thing:

7336

Funny hats indeed!
T-shirts... not that much at the time, but huge now, retroactively. Agricultural and industrial implements on t-shirts just sell really well nowadays, for some reason.

Still expected to see these into the 1980's

gumalangi
01-14-2015, 05:52 PM
why beat a dying fish man :),.

with only few actives members,. lets just exchanging knowledge,. from this simple quiz :)

i keen to know more on strange arsenals,. quiz is one of the way to rise the self inquiry ;)

Churchill
01-14-2015, 10:24 PM
Because you insist, its the ASU-57.

wingsofwrath
01-15-2015, 11:40 AM
It is, indeed :D

And speaking of this series, the best looking of the bunch is probably ASU-85, although ASU-76 is not too bad either...

Oh, and please note how the suspension is almost an exact copy of that of the Czech LT vz. 38/Panzerkampfwagen 38(t), only without the rear idler. The soviets sure know a good design when they see one.

Churchill
01-15-2015, 02:56 PM
Guess that leaves it up to me.

7340

Alright, this shouldn't be too difficult.

leccy
01-15-2015, 06:38 PM
Cant recall seing this beasty before, Chassis makes it obvious where to look though.

Churchill
01-15-2015, 07:47 PM
Yup .

wingsofwrath
01-16-2015, 01:16 AM
Fiiiine, my turn to state the obvious to get this moving along XD

KV-7 (object 226), a frankly weird idea to make a TD by mounting one 76mm and two 45mm cannons in a casemate on top of a KV-1 hull...
Another version existed with twin 76mm guns, just as useless, imho.

Churchill
01-16-2015, 03:05 PM
Heh, carry on mate.

wingsofwrath
01-17-2015, 12:56 AM
Well, if we're talking about weird double barrelled designs, then, by all means, let's continue!
What could this thing be?

7341

Churchill
01-17-2015, 01:50 PM
Hah, that looks almost like the T-28 Prototype Prototype that Wargaming brought out for the individual missions.

01-18-2015, 12:42 AM
Excellent choice WoW!

One of the vehicles "envisioned" by the aptly named "Questionmark Conference" was the Hunter, a tank destroyer armed with twin 105mm rocket guns fed by 7 round auto-loaders.

7342

wingsofwrath
01-18-2015, 06:22 AM
You are absolutely correct, Mr. Malarz, you are indeed a connoisseur of esoteric vehicles.
Please proceed, the board is yours!

01-18-2015, 10:03 PM
Thanx WoW!

This one's a little different... we all know what it is, but here's the question: where is it and what did it do?

7343

wingsofwrath
01-19-2015, 03:51 AM
Heh. I actually know this.

That is a lead-lined Sherman tank used at the Trinity nuclear blast site to recover soil samples from near ground zero.
It's probably a Chrysler built M4A4 (interestingly, most A4s were sent as lend-lease to allied countries and the model was never used by the US Army in combat), made around April 1943 - it has the Chrysler distinctive type of drive sprocket, no direct vision, small hatches with "narrow" drivers' hood castings, a 57° glacis, the later lifting rings and the later 3-piece differential housing with the protection lip, a "High bustle" 75mm turret with the pistol port and no reinforcement of the cheek "thin spot" on the right front of the turret, which were all features which only existed simultaneously on the Chrysler manufactured M4A4s. Of course, I could be wrong and it could also be a really mismatched Ford M4A3, but the chances are slim in that direction.

Besides the extra 12 tons of lead lining to protect the crew, on the engine deck this tank carries rockets that were supposed to be fired into the crater from 500m away, take a soil sample and then be winched back by wires, which worked eventually after an initial aborted run in which the tank stalled.

The tank was also fitted with four Watt's type radiation meters with ranges of 0.1 to 100 R/h - two of them on the front, one on top and one inside. As befits a NBC protected vehicle, the tank was hermetically sealed and oxygen for the crew was provided from four cylinders located on brackets on the sides of the hull. The whole tank was also painted in reflective white.

There was also a second vehicle (looks like a Ford manufactured M4A3) with the turret removed who was used for a direct approach to within 15m of Ground Zero and used a trap-door in the bottom of the tank and a vacuum cleaner type device to collect samples.

Here they are both, in pictures taken from another board (http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/6424-trinity-sherman/):

7344

7345

01-19-2015, 11:37 PM
You are correct sir!

A blurb I read about them mentions the hazardous nature of their mission. The fear that the overloaded tank would suffer a catastrophic breakdown and subject it's crew to a horrible death led to Enrico Fermi devising the later variant, with the rear deck mounted rockets. On it's first run, the tank stalled. When the rockets were launched, they tangled their trailing cables... not an auspicious start!

Take it away WoW!

wingsofwrath
01-21-2015, 03:42 AM
Thank you, Mr. Malarz!

Now, there's a good chance this will be resolved in two seconds flat (some of it's design features are, after all, kind of obvious), but it is an interesting little vehicle so I couldn't let the chance to bring it to your attention pass me up:
7346

JR*
01-22-2015, 09:54 AM
Can't put my finger on it. Looks like an early prototype of the PzKpfw II. Very like, actually. Wish I could put a precise reference on it. Totally wrong, probably. Best regards, JR.

wingsofwrath
01-23-2015, 03:30 AM
Technically, you can argue our mystery vehicle shares a somewhat tortuous relationship with the PZII because both tanks were distantly inspired by the same vehicle, but that's neither here nor there, because that particular vehicle was used in the interbellum period by over seventeen countries and inspired indigenous tank production in at least six of those.

Keep digging! :D

leccy
01-23-2015, 06:21 AM
First thought was along the lines of the M11/39 or a Czechoslovakian design like the LT 34??

wingsofwrath
01-24-2015, 11:37 PM
It's definitely not Italian, but you're getting mighty close with your talk about the LT vz. 34...

tankgeezer
03-18-2015, 08:58 PM
Since it's been a couple of Months since anyone posted, I'm going to move things along with this.

wingsofwrath
03-19-2015, 03:27 AM
An easy one for me, but, because my last enigma still stands and it's probably time for me to let others answer as well, I won't answer publicly.
Instead, I sent tankgeezer a message with the answer, and it's up to him to confirm or deny I got it right.

tankgeezer
03-19-2015, 01:15 PM
Indeed you did Wings, you are all far too good at this game.. :) And just because it's proper,Wings' offering is still in play. (I'm really interested to find out the name of your will-O-wisp, Wings)

leccy
03-19-2015, 03:17 PM
The hull is an M6 but the rear of the turret looks more like a huge version of the one on the M26/M46

tankgeezer
03-19-2015, 04:35 PM
Keep at it, :)

leccy
03-19-2015, 06:25 PM
Would be too easy if I looked on the net now, trying to place the bits from memory

tankgeezer
03-20-2015, 05:52 PM
Look it up, it's perfectly fair to use the Interwebs. Where has everyone been lately? It's like this thread drifted into,,,

tankgeezer
03-21-2015, 10:12 PM
Alright, Wingsofwrath has had his offering on the block for months now, so to spur some activity, I will offer a premium to the member who successfully answers his question. One not too new copy of "Target America" an action adventure novel by Scott McEwen. While not War and Peace, it is worthy to help you occupy your time at the laundromat, or waiting room. I will send the book free of charge to the winner. No elbowing each other now,, :)

leccy
03-27-2015, 07:30 AM
Hmm okies M6A2E1


One built mounting a T5E1 turret with a 105mm gun on an enlarged turret ring (80" instead of 69", height of 11' 5" and length with gun forward of 37' it was considered too large to be off use by the time it could be fielded weighing in at close to 70 tonnes.

7385

And seems like most tanks now if you look them up you get dozens of links to WoT pages.

leccy
03-27-2015, 07:41 AM
Thank you, Mr. Malarz!

Now, there's a good chance this will be resolved in two seconds flat (some of it's design features are, after all, kind of obvious), but it is an interesting little vehicle so I couldn't let the chance to bring it to your attention pass me up:
7346

Ok looking at this it seems similar to an image i found of the Skoda MU-2, one produced and turret could not rotate 360 degrees.

I say similar as the box next to the turret is mounted on the other side so maybe one image or the other is reversed.

7384


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKWfmBRb_zI

tankgeezer
03-27-2015, 10:12 AM
Hmm okies M6A2E1



7385

And seems like most tanks now if you look them up you get dozens of links to WoT pages.

You pinned the Tail on that one Leccy, well done. I'm going to need a new book of weird armor..

wingsofwrath
03-28-2015, 03:30 AM
Congratulations are in order!
Well done, Mr. Leccy, you get two for two!

That is indeed an image of the Skoda MU-2.
It is also mirrored, as you well observed, because all my posted enigmas were getting picked off immediately and I decided to make things a bit more difficult. Turns out I may have been a little too devious this time around...
Oh, well. XD

Since you managed to find both enigmas, there can be no confusion about whose turn it is.
Mr. Leccy, the board is yours.

leccy
03-28-2015, 08:09 AM
Lol got to find one now, got a few ideas just need the right image :-)

tankgeezer
03-28-2015, 08:12 AM
Leccy the Triumphant. would you PM your mailing address to me so that I may mail you this most suspenseful, and prestigious Tome ? Doesn't matter where you are, unless you are an alien posting from a distant Galaxy. ;) :)

leccy
03-28-2015, 12:46 PM
Ok lets see how this one goes

7387

I would like the third tank back to be identified - the first two and the fourth are easier to identify.

wingsofwrath
03-29-2015, 03:17 AM
Well, well, well.
Now this is an interesting one, but rather logical if you stop to think about it, and I think I can now tell you not only what, but when, where and who...

The three tanks we're not supposed to identify are unmistakably Vickers Light Tank Mk IIB India Pattern, and by the markings, I'd say the scene takes palace in the Khyber pass around May of 1931 when the 2nd Light Tank Company was deployed around those parts with those particular tanks (http://www.travel-culture.com/pakistan/khyber-pass-old-images.shtml).

The mystery tank looks very, very similar to the ones we already identified, but has a different turret, so we can assume it is a related vehicle. We also know they changed the suspension for the next incarnation of the Vickers Light Tank (the Mark III light tank suspension had a Horstmann coil spring going at an angle rather than horizontal) but the mystery vehicle has exactly the same suspension as the Mk IIs, so it can't be one of those.

Add to that the cylindrical turret and the only possibility is that tank is one of the 4 Vickers Mk IA which had earlier been sent to India for "testing purposes".
Now, I couldn't find an actual photo of that little beastie in order to verify my claims, but we also know the MK IA had the same Horstmann suspension with horizontal coil springs as the Mk II, unlike the "regular" Mk Is which relied on leaf springs, and the sloped casemate on top of the turret is consistent with the "India pattern" modifications applied to the Mk IIs.

leccy
03-29-2015, 05:08 AM
Damn lol you sussed it - I was hoping to confuse a little with all having the same suspension and relatively little known about the Light Mk IA.

I found the image in a Pathe news footage, it is indeed a Vickers Light Mk IA IP - the Mk I and four of the Mk IA used the same cylindrical turret (the 5th Mk IA had a twin gun turret - one above the other), the India Pattern versions had commanders cupolas each of them had a different style to test out. The Mk II used the same hull as the Mk IA but had a new turret.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/modern-methods

leccy
03-29-2015, 05:09 AM
Had a slight computer issue when I tried to post and ended up double posting

wingsofwrath
03-30-2015, 05:03 AM
Thank you for the link to the Pathe news footage, I had never seen it before.

Interestingly, the video also bridges the gap between the the image you posted and the one in my answer, because it shows both the tanks passing by the group of locals and one of the tanks climbing out of the small ravine which appears in my photo, so we also have the exact date the footage was shot - May 7th, 1931.

Also, I didn't know the Indian Pattern Cupola was also called a "Mitre Cupola".

From what I could tell, your image comes from a magazine called "The Kings Army" (http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=2587920217&searchurl=tn%3Dthe+king%27s+army%26an%3Dwinchester +clarence) which was printed in 1937 for the coronation of George VI. The actual scan probably comes from here (http://s586.photobucket.com/user/Genialjim3/media/ind3.jpg.html).

Also, I am quite busy at the moment and don't have time to post a new enigma, so, by all means, feel free to keep posting in my stead - after all, it's the hunt I enjoy...

Churchill
03-30-2015, 02:25 PM
There we have it folks! The first post on the 100th page of this thread! Congratulations WingsofWrath!

tankgeezer
03-30-2015, 08:13 PM
!!!!!!!

leccy
04-03-2015, 05:26 PM
Just to tide over - a little clip from Pathe news.

The tankette on the road at around 19 seconds (no 9)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCQmwAFKtFM

tankgeezer
04-03-2015, 05:32 PM
Always more fun in the rain, and mud. :mrgreen:

wingsofwrath
04-04-2015, 04:53 AM
Ah, the good old days of the Experimental Mechanized Force!

To just identify that single vehicle would be a mite easy, because that's another one I know on sight - we're talking here about the 1924 Carden-Loyd One Man Tankette, Mk.I, seen here with the wheel attachments for driving on the roads, which were designed to both extend track life and reduce wear to the road.

But moving back to the start, at 0:10 we have a Carden-Loyd Two-Man Tankette dash past, with the hull number "8". Impossible to discern more details than that, but probably an Mk.IV/V

Between 0:14-0:19 two Carden-Loyd One Man Tankettes, Mk.1, and finally a third, with the rubber road wheel attachments, all with the hull number "9".

Starting at 0:21 we have theBirch Gun, Mk.II, easily one of the worst missed opportunities of the interwar British Army - had they persevered with this vehicle, they might have had decent self propelled artillery by 1940 and they wouldn't have had to resort to these kind of monstrosities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_%28artillery%29) when ww2 rolled along.

From 0:32, we have a Vickers Medium Mk II laying some smoke. Then brand spanking new, but shortly to become the mainstay of the interwar British tank corps.

0:41 - a gaggle of Vickers Medium Mk.Is shooting at... something. They had 48 of those for these manoeuvres, so it's going to come up a lot.

0:56 - another Mk.I negotiating obstacles - I bet it must have been a bone shaking ride... But at least, unlike the American Ford 3-ton-tank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgeOW4YOGak) who gets discouraged by a barbed wire fence, this one CAN plough straight through brick walls...

1:25 - easily the most interesting vehicles in the whole segment, an experimental bridgelaying tank build by Major H H Bateman of the Royal Engineers Experimental Bridging Establishment at Christchurch in Hampshire, on the basis of the Dragon Mark I artillery tractor, itself an offshoot of the Medium Mk.I.

1:50 - our old friend, the Mk.1 and a Rolls Royce Mk1 Armoured Car, 1920 Pattern. With the rain that's coming down, I bet everyone is having a great time XD

2:10 - that's a novel way to cross rivers - pity it didn't catch on, although I can't imagine a PzKpw VI trying the same manoeuvre as this little Mk.1...

2:13 - Oh, my, it's the Vickers A1E1 Independent! Well, that's one design that's getting nowhere fast... except to Bovington, that is, where I believe this fine specimen of interwar tank design insanity is preserved to this day.

2:16 - Awww, look, it has babies! Oh, wait, it's our little friend, the Carden-Loyd One Man tankette. Easy mistake to make XD.

2:19 - remember the Armstrong-Siddely Dragon Mk.1 artillery tractors that was the base for that bridge layer we saw earlier? Well, it's these things- and they're towing an 18 pounder field gun and limber.

2:30 more bridging. The vehicle crossing at 3:05 looks like Crossley 15hp, but I can't be sure.

3:16 - two MK.II Birch Guns.

3:26 passing what looks like a Burford-Kegresse, 3 ton Field Artillery Tractor towing an QF 4.5-inch howitzer and limber. The spare wheel is unusually forward for a Burford, but it's definitely not a Morris-Commercial or a FWD-Roadless because of the distinctive Kergesse track.

3:40 - those are some speedy medium Mk.1s. Hope they have good brakes...

3:57 -some other odd designs - three Morris-Martel tankettes of two types closely followed by another pass by the Carden-Loyd Two-Man Tankette Mk.IV

4:08- more Birch Gun.

4:20 - back to bridging and the Medium Mk.1

4:25 -the Carden-Loyd One Man Tankettes, doing a nifty piece of interpretive dance.

4:30 -the Morris-Martel sure is a strange looking beast, isn't it?

4:35 - oh, there's more of them! On the left, the 1925 one-man version , while on the right the two-man.

4:40 - Is that a poor Carden-Loyd Two-Man Tankette Mk.IV with some wheels strapped on? Yeah, no more alcohol for you, my friend.

From 4:42 - the parade of oddities continues.

5:12- of note is what looks like a Citroen-Kegresse, 15 cwt, Half-Track, Artillery Battery Staff Car.

5:39 - some Citroen-Kegresse Half-Tracks, various types, mixed 15 and 30 cwt.

5:50 - a lingering shot of some Medium Mk.Is shooting through the smoke.

leccy
04-04-2015, 08:25 AM
Was wondering what you would call the Carden Loyd as I have seen it variously named

Carden-Loyd One Man Tankette, Mk.I
Carden-Loyd One Man Tankette, Mk.I, Wheel cum track
Carden-Loyd One Man Tankette, Mk.I* (which follows the designations used at the time by the British to differentiate between different models in a Mk)
Carden-Loyd One Man Tankette, Mk.I, prototype no 3 - third machine (first built with the wheel cum track design) - or third variant.

The dissolution of the Experimental Mechanised Force was almost criminal - beating all opposition despite the deliberate handicaps and biased umpiring arrayed against them.

Being a Sapper I did take interest in the Bridging and have been looking for more information on the trestle crossing that was used (no top chords or bearing surface) at around 2 mins - crossed and built many military bridges in all weather conditions and times of day - that would scare me in perfect conditions to cross.

I had not identified all the vehicles in this clip, it is in my to do list, although may not need to now :-). i have been doing some ID on various clips when bored and adding them to the comments.

Churchill
04-04-2015, 11:55 AM
Dat Birch Gun. So good. XD

tankgeezer
05-16-2015, 12:31 AM
Last one answered? anything new?

Churchill
05-16-2015, 01:20 PM
Pretty sure its Wings' turn to post a picture.

wingsofwrath
05-17-2015, 03:47 AM
Oops, sorry. I've completely forgotten about this thing, since I've had a lot on my mind recently.
Here is a little picture that will prove at least passably puzzling. Good hunting!

7459

JR*
05-19-2015, 07:27 AM
Similar approach to the Schofield, it appears. But of course, this is not a Schofield. Bit foxed at the moment ... JR.

Churchill
05-19-2015, 01:03 PM
Rawr, what is it with everyone loving hybrids in this thread? XD

wingsofwrath
05-20-2015, 01:51 AM
Heh, And to think I considered posting the Schofield, because I imagined it to be more obscure... XD

leccy
06-15-2015, 05:14 AM
Hmmm I been looking at the Swedish Landsverk L30 - Stridsvagn fm/31 - not right though