Com-Central.net

- the_shadock

well, we could still use my own pictures and publish them under another name than mine, but I'm not sure that it is a solution.
IMO, the main risk in publishing photos of Saumur without permission, is to forbid any other photo being taken in the restricted areas. Until now, as few photos were published on the internet, permission is granted to take few pictures of the reserves during the visits (the reserves are opened to the pubic 2 days a year). The museum would say no to this in the future, if we publish too many pictures.

Pierre-Olivier

If we do it, it should be above board using our own names - I wouldn't do it any other way. I understand that their argument is that photo's published online reduce the number of visitors, but this shouldn't matter with the reserve vehicles since they aren't available to ordinary visitors most of the time anyway.

- the_shadock

well, we should go ahead on other sections of PTIF, and we could still go back to the Saumur section if ever we have a permission one day. Anyway, we could update the list without publishing new pictures.

I still have to review the last section of the PTIF.

IIRC I've sent you updates for all the other ones.

However, I only sent you updates (corrections), there are no additions, and your book is missing some vehicles that are listed on my own website and PDF list.

P-O

Thanks for your updates so far, and I agree there are other vehicles that need adding. However, I am reluctant to move ahead with new sections when the biggest and most important section, covering Saumur, is badly incomplete, and illustrated mostly with photo's from nearly 30 years ago. We must find a way to bring it up to date.

- the_shadock

- Massimo_Foti

I gave up trying to see the logic behind their behaviors :lol:

the logic is : the less photos on the internet, the more visits in the museum.
That's a point of view, but it is not mine..

A photo on a computer screen will never replace a visit on the real place, but "some people" think different.

P-O

Indeed, I take a similar view to you - you get more visitors by having more publicity. It's the most well known collections that get the most visitors, not those that keep themselves to themselves.


Ultimately, I am not convinced that we are up against an official policy at Saumur. Instead I think it is partly that they are disorganised, and no-one there wants to make a decision that they think sets a precedent. There are lots of Saumur photos on the web, for example at Wikimedia, and there is no public protest about it. They have made no objections to my site so far on any grounds (though the Internet wasn't around when I originally got permission for my photographs, and it does use some photographs from other people).

As I see it we have asked for official permission to use photographs and they have not said no, and we've given them plenty of time and opportunity. My inclination is to go ahead, quite openly without deceit, in the terms we said to them we would - i.e. on PreservedTanks.com and in a new edition of PTIF, and we send them a copy of the book as we promised before it's published. They will have the opportunity to stop the process if they wish but I don't think they will. In fact, I believe we will be able to persuade them that it is in their interest to publicise the collection. Once the website and book are complete and known to the public I am sure their visitor numbers will increase, and then hopefully we will have more co-operation and help with future editions.

- TrevorLarkum

As I see it we have asked for official permission to use photographs and they have not said no, and we've given them plenty of time and opportunity. My inclination is to go ahead, quite openly without deceit, in the terms we said to them we would - i.e. on PreservedTanks.com and in a new edition of PTIF, and we send them a copy of the book as we promised before it's published. They will have the opportunity to stop the process if they wish but I don't think they will. In fact, I believe we will be able to persuade them that it is in their interest to publicise the collection. Once the website and book are complete and known to the public I am sure their visitor numbers will increase, and then hopefully we will have more co-operation and help with future editions.

Trevor,

I agree with you, but I'm still reluctant to use my real name if we publish photos from Saumur. The main reason is that I'm a member of the Saumur association, and would still like to have access to some "restricted" parts of the museum, or to some vehicles restoration projects. As you and Massimo are foreigners, the risk is less important for you than for me, IMO.

P-O

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm suggesting we go ahead because we have tacit (silent) agreement from Saumur to do so, and so there should be absolutely no problem with it affecting your access (perhaps the opposite). If I thought they really didn't want us to publish then I wouldn't go ahead. That is part of the point of having these sorts of discussions in public.

Put it another way. If we go ahead and it causes a discussion or argument then we at least know where we stand, and can either fix it, or abandon the project.

To provide a background location for the M103 at Camp Shelby I have written up Fort Polk, mostly based on my manuscript from the mid-1980s:

Location ID 68100: Fort Polk

If anyone has any photographs of vehicles there, or any information on the 'mystery of the missing tanks' please let me know. It may, of course, turn out that some of them ended up a Shelby but we won't know until we have serial number information for the Shelby vehicles.

The M103 itself is certainly well travelled:

Unique ID 1368: Camp Shelby M103

To 'complete the set' for the tanks that were dispersed from the Louisiana museum I have written up VFW 8971 and its M60:

Location ID 68400: VFW 8971 Eunice - M60

Tanklord, please check it when you have a minute and let me know if you see any errors.

Also for a background location for the M42 at Shelby I wrote up ACF, prompted by the data plate that Tanklord photographed when the vehicle was at Lafayette Asphalt:

Location ID 88850: American Car and Foundry

[quote="TrevorLarkum"]To 'complete the set' for the tanks that were dispersed from the Louisiana museum I have written up VFW 8971 and its M60:

Location ID 68400: VFW 8971 Eunice - M60

Tanklord, please check it when you have a minute and let me know if you see any errors.

Trevor, I need to go back and change the info on that tank. I had been told it was the one from the museum, but as you can see from the post on Camp Shelby, the museum's M60 went there. We had only one M60. I forgot to connect the dots there. Had I done that I would have known that was not "our" museum 60.

Understood, I hadn't spotted the contradiction. If I just remove the info about it coming from the Louisiana museum, the rest should still be correct?

- TrevorLarkum

Understood, I hadn't spotted the contradiction. If I just remove the info about it coming from the Louisiana museum, the rest should still be correct?

Everything else is correct. All the numbers are ones that I saw.

Fixed.

Location ID 68400: VFW 8971 Eunice - M60

Trevor,

Got your PM and replied, I also have updates and information you requested so I will post here since I'm sure others might find it interesting. Sorry for the absence but I'm moving to a house outside of town, a little bit of land along with garages and a shop to work on my cars (and maybe an AFV in the future if I get lucky).

M60 formerly located at the LaFayette Asphalt Company. Based on Tanklords images and the RN, the most likely Serial Number on this tank would be 167. This tank has gone through a rebuild as indicated by the later armored air cleaner units and the removal of the M2 .50 cal stowage bracket from the rear of the turret bustle. The latter being quite unusual and I've only seen done on one other tank. I cannot with 100% certainty say she's in the storage lot of Camp Shelby since I couldn't inspect her up close, but she did arrive around the same time as all the other vehicles. She is stored in a different lot along with the two M60A3's that were formerly in front of the VA center that's outside the Camp Shelby South Gate along HWY 49. Location: 31.190895, -89.224110

M60
Aerial
She is the most distant tank in the first picture and on the right with the gun over the rear in the other.

You have the M110A2 listed twice, She is not displayed at the Museum but is next to the M60 at the MATES site. Location: 31.186275, -89.218385. My album doesn't differentiate this so it's my fault for the confusion.
M110A2
SN BMY 579

The main storage lot at Camp Shelby where all the transfers from LaFayette are is located at this Grid: 31.194525, -89.235460.

My pictures of the lot and museum out door displays were taken March 29, 2009. This includes the images I posted above.

The Eunice Louisiana M60 I am tracking as SN 663. This also correlates within the range of the two weld numbers (DT-666 and CG-685 which can be used to help ID SN's on early M60's) on the rear along with the RN 9B3780.

Hope this helps tidy things up,

Just got to this, having been distracted by the work on ALCO.

- Joe_D

Trevor,

Got your PM and replied, I also have updates and information you requested so I will post here since I'm sure others might find it interesting. Sorry for the absence but I'm moving to a house outside of town, a little bit of land along with garages and a shop to work on my cars (and maybe an AFV in the future if I get lucky).

Sounds great! Do let us know how you get on there, even if you don't manage to work on anything heavy and green! I'm already thinking about my retirement, and cruising around Europe in a motorhome (RV) visiting museums, collections and battlefields.

- Joe_D

M60 formerly located at the LaFayette Asphalt Company. Based on Tanklords images and the RN, the most likely Serial Number on this tank would be 167. This tank has gone through a rebuild as indicated by the later armored air cleaner units and the removal of the M2 .50 cal stowage bracket from the rear of the turret bustle. The latter being quite unusual and I've only seen done on one other tank. I cannot with 100% certainty say she's in the storage lot of Camp Shelby since I couldn't inspect her up close, but she did arrive around the same time as all the other vehicles. She is stored in a different lot along with the two M60A3's that were formerly in front of the VA center that's outside the Camp Shelby South Gate along HWY 49. Location: 31.190895, -89.224110

M60
Aerial
She is the most distant tank in the first picture and on the right with the gun over the rear in the other.

You have the M110A2 listed twice, She is not displayed at the Museum but is next to the M60 at the MATES site. Location: 31.186275, -89.218385. My album doesn't differentiate this so it's my fault for the confusion.
M110A2
SN BMY 579

The main storage lot at Camp Shelby where all the transfers from LaFayette are is located at this Grid: 31.194525, -89.235460.

My pictures of the lot and museum out door displays were taken March 29, 2009. This includes the images I posted above.

There's a lot there, so let me know if I got anything wrong - here's the new Camp Shelby entry:

Camp Shelby

Note:
- I have updated the entry for the Lafayette Asphalt M60.
- I have added new entries for the two M60A3s you mention. This includes a best guess location for the VA center based on Google throwing up a VFW post address at 3592 Highway 49. The trail went cold there, so I'm guessing the post was closed or moved, and perhaps that's why the tanks went. Do you have any other photos for them?
- I have added the GPS locations to the map for this storage area and the main one.
- I have corrected the M110 and added the new photos.
- I have used the March 2009 date for most of the photos without a date - would this also apply to the M2A2 pics? Also one of the M42B1E9 photos looks much earlier than the other (before they painted the tracks green).
- I have updated the Eunice entry:

M60 at Eunice, Louisiana

Many thanks.

Today I am pleased to announce a major upgrade to PreservedTanks.com, it has been planned for some time but was prompted by Doug's request for US factory information.

- Doug_Kibbey

OT, somewhat...

Does anyone have a partial or complete list of facilities in the U.S. that built tanks (hull, turret, or to completion) since 1940? That would be foundries, factories, or any enterprise that was the main source for tanks from 1940 through the cold war (I'm less interested in the M1 Abrams generation).

What cities they were located in would also be helpful.

Thx in advance.
D.

PTC is, of course, based on a large database of preserved tanks, and when you click on a link on the website a query is sent to the database to return a list of vehicles that satisfy the query. When originally built there was a restriction that any query had to return at least one tank - that seemed like an obvious requirement. However, now that I am adding places to the database that don't currently have tanks - such as factories, upgrade workshops, transit locations, etc. that requirement has become a restriction. Hence the change removes this restriction throughout the database, while attempting to keep all existing links working (please let me know if you see anywhere where old links are now broken).

So what does this mean? This is probably best explained with examples, starting with tanks in the USA.


Old query/link:

Preserved Tanks in the USA


New queries/links available:

Tank Facilities in the USA - Doug, this one's for you!

All Tank-Related Locations in the USA (the previous two queries combined)


Of course, these links are only able to return information that's in the database, so I continue to add entries as fast as I can, but it will be some years before it approaches completion!

Some other examples:

Tank Facilities in the UK

Tank Facilities in Japan

Tank Facilities in Italy

Tank Facilities in France


German Tank Facilities:
Germany
Czechoslovakia
Austria
Poland

Soviet Tank Facilities:
Russia
Ukraine

To give background info/location for the M44 at Fort Lewis I have written up another factory:

Location ID 99450: Massey Harris Company

- the US taking a leaf out of the Soviet handbook and using a tractor factory to make tanks?!

Further to tank factories, while writing up the T-34 at Bovington I learned that they believed it was built at the Omsk factory. That prompted me to research and write up the Omsk works - then one thing led to another and I ended up writing up most of the significant Russian tank factories. You may find it interesting if you don't know your Uralmash from your Uraltransmash (as I didn't before I started!):


Tank Factories in Russia

[img]http://preservedtanks.com/Albums/Locations/Russia/2345-Chelyabinskiy%20Traktornyy%20Zavod%20%28ChTZ%29/Soviet_TankProduction_FactoryWWII_Wiki_c.jpg[/img]


It certainly confirms the significance of the Urals as the base for Russian tank manufacture - even after the main factories moved back west late in the war those established in the Urals remained the dominant factories in terms of numbers.

Since getting back from Hong Kong I've been working on writing up the museum I visited there and it's Comet tank, and that's now done:

Location ID 14900: Hong Museum of Coastal Defence



Anyone working on AFV Registers is welcome to link to the Ferret and other photos there.


Unique ID 1817: Comet Tank, Hong Kong




I've also written up Shek Kong, which is where the Comet last served:

Location ID 14950: Shek Kong Barracks, New Territories



If anyone can add anything to the information on Comets serving in Hong Kong, I'd love to hear about it.

Meanwhile, before I went I ordered Hunnicutt's Sherman and Stuart books (still pricey, but cheaper than I've seen in the past) and they've now arrived - I'm hoping to use them to add more detail to those sections of the website.