Tank ID 1940
Go to page 1, 2  Next  :| |:
-> AFV News Discussion Board

#1: Tank ID 1940 Author: MarkHollowayLocation: Beatty, Nevada PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:52 pm
    ----
Fort Knox


#2: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: the_shadockLocation: Normandy, France PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:58 pm
    ----
looks like an M2 light tank, but I don't recognize the turret type..

P-O

#3: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: MarkHollowayLocation: Beatty, Nevada PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:05 am
    ----
I've been looking at the 'snub nose' .50 cal. What the heck is it?

#4: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: Doug_KibbeyLocation: The Great Satan PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:16 am
    ----
- MarkHolloway
I've been looking at the 'snub nose' .50 cal. What the heck is it?


Definitely a .50 reciever/barrel combination, but I've never seen a snubby like that.

That cavalry plaque on the turret side looks way too ornate for a typical service vehicle. I'd guess this is some kind of sale-of-concept image for army in-house use or as a proposal from a vendor.

Somebody here is selling something. Either that, or this is some extremely vain senior officer's vehicle.

#5: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: toadmanstankpictures PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:30 am
    ----
- Doug_Kibbey
- MarkHolloway
I've been looking at the 'snub nose' .50 cal. What the heck is it?


Definitely a .50 reciever/barrel combination, but I've never seen a snubby like that.

That cavalry plaque on the turret side looks way too ornate for a typical service vehicle. I'd guess this is some kind of sale-of-concept image for army in-house use or as a proposal from a vendor.

Somebody here is selling something. Either that, or this is some extremely vain senior officer's vehicle.

It's actually a M1 or M1A1 Combat Car. The cavalry plaque was a standard fit during the inter-war period. Tanks belonging to the infantry had plaques with crossed rifles.

#6: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: Joe_DLocation: Razorback Country PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:13 am
    ----
I'm wondering if that's a blank adapter barrel, IOW specifically made just for blanks.

The M19 BFA wasn't around back then. Maybe I need to research some of my M2 TM's.

#7: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: MarkHollowayLocation: Beatty, Nevada PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:35 pm
    ----
My wild guess is that it may actually be a .30 cal machine gun.

#8: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: JimWebLocation: The back of beyond PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:06 pm
    ----
- MarkHolloway
My wild guess is that it may actually be a .30 cal machine gun.


There goes another reputation Wink

#9: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: MarkHollowayLocation: Beatty, Nevada PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:19 pm
    ----
Here's another "snub nosed 50"


Last edited by MarkHolloway on Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

#10: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: Joe_DLocation: Razorback Country PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:15 pm
    ----
That one looks like a .30 cal,

Notice the cloth belt and the TC holding the pistol grip. Quite an unusual picture.

#11: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: MarkHollowayLocation: Beatty, Nevada PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:31 pm
    ----
I can't figure out the bumper number. 1st Brigade 66th Armored Division? No such thing I don'e believe. Maybe 1st Training Brigade, 66th Armor?

#12: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: Joe_DLocation: Razorback Country PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:37 pm
    ----
You got a better/bigger image,

Shoulder patches aren't subdued and mightgive a good clue. Suspect the picture was between 63-66, since she is equipped with the VSS-1 search light fittings but still has the old M28 periscope for the TC's cupola.

#13: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: MarkHollowayLocation: Beatty, Nevada PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:25 am
    ----
I can't figure it out. See:
farm3.static.flickr.co...5f51_b.jpg

#14: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: C_Sherman PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:52 am
    ----
Hi,

63-66 would make it under that weird TOE that was in effect for a while? Atomic Divisions, or somesuch?

I recall that they used "Battle Groups" instead of brigades, so 1BG would be 1st Battle Group...maybe?

C

#15: Re: Tank ID 1940 Author: MarkHollowayLocation: Beatty, Nevada PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:38 am
    ----
- C_Sherman
Hi,

63-66 would make it under that weird TOE that was in effect for a while? Atomic Divisions, or somesuch?

I recall that they used "Battle Groups" instead of brigades, so 1BG would be 1st Battle Group...maybe?

C

I think you are right! I got to looking around and 66th Armor was part of the Combat Arms Regimental System. 'CARS' consisted of battalions, squadrons or BATTLE GROUPS.



-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Go to page 1, 2  Next  :| |:
Page 1 of 2