Com-Central.net

the_shadock

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440139

well, I think that this StuG went to the UK after it was sold to a new private owner... some guys on the Wehrmacht Awards forum say that it may be transferred only to participate to the War and Peace Show, but I'm not sure the transfer will last only few weeks.

Pierre-Olivier

Dontos

Beautiful looking restoration.

Just a very bizarre chain tie down (!?) Quite amateurish.

It appears that whomever did the tie down has little experience at heavy tracked vehicle tie down.

Just my humble opinion.

Regards
Don

JimWeb

I agree - there is no way that 'chain down' is going to stop that vehicle moving sideways AND its overhanging the trailer sides as well.

chrisballance · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Mar 16, 2010 Posts: 31

Pierre-Olivier,

Can you check your StuG III records and see if any other vehicles on it are known to have a Fahrgestell number of 96 158?

Fgst.96 158 was a 9SS or 10SS StuG (tactical number 826) captured by the British in Normandy and sent back to the UK for evaluation and there are a number of photos of it floating around in several well know StuG books. It was a Miag machine built in December 1943.

Using Vol.2 of Peter Müller & Wolfgang Zimmermann's Sturmgeschütz series and a number of photos of the Southampton bound StuG, I think I am able to identify the Southampton bound StuG as being a Miag machine built between Nov.43 and Jan.44. I have working theory that the Southampton bound StuG might be Fgst.96 158

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, Regards,

Chris.

the_shadock

- chrisballance

Pierre-Olivier,

Can you check your StuG III records and see if any other vehicles on it are known to have a Fahrgestell number of 96 158?

Chris.

the answer is no, there are no StuG III in my records known as being Fahrgestell 96 158, at least for the moment Wink

.

Here is a gallery showing the same StuG at Brent Mullins' shop :
http://www.austinarmorbuilders.com/Gallery/Gallery_Chris_De_Haven.htm

Brent Mullins was in charge of the shipping to UK.

P-O

Michel_Krauss

I have to agree (partly) with Jim and Don

The securing of the StuG to the flat rack is worse the amateuristic

All the securing chains appear to be fitted to the tracks, front sprocket and rear idler wheel Shocked

Besides the poor job of securing the Stug, there is also an good change that bearings and fittings of the sprocket and idler get damaged
These items are not designed to get pulled sideway's continuous for an couple of weeks, during shipping

Michel

VonForhud · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Mar 17, 2010 Posts: 162

Those chains would snap it the STUG jerks forward or backward with a bit of force.

The Paint job is not the original markings, is it Hitlerjugend symbol on the front left?

chrisballance · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Mar 16, 2010 Posts: 31

Thanks for looking P-O, I tried to get the Fahrgestell number from Brent Mullins two weeks ago. He was not able to help.

As regards to markings. This vehicle has been repainted at least twice. In the Wehrmacht Awards forum thread that P-O linked at the start, someone has posted photos of the paint scheme before this one. In it's current scheme it was once marked as a 2nd Pz.Div. vehicle. I think the 2.PD markings are from when it was in the Ropkey collection. I believe the current LAH markings are the work of Joe Fazio.

If I am right about the vehicle being built at Miag between Nov.43-Jan.44, originally the vehicle would have been covered with zimmerit in the Miag applied pattern which was a 'checker board' like pattern of horizontal and vertical lines.

C_Sherman · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 590

- JimWeb

I agree - there is no way that 'chain down' is going to stop that vehicle moving sideways AND its overhanging the trailer sides as well.

All those chains are going to do is make someone feel better...until the tank lands on their head! There isn't enough chain there to secure that vehicle even if it was done right. I've seen this sort of thing before though. Shocked

It's not at all uncommon for the inexperienced to seriously underestimate the tie-down requirements of heavy equipment and machinery. I've been on jobs where I literally walked away from the lift, just so I had no involvement in the disaster that was waiting to happen. I've seen stuff fall off of trucks, and seen equipment destroyed by banging around inside a container (kind of tough on the container, too!), all because someone 'thought' it was secure enough. Rolling Eyes

C

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big