Identifying Army matériel

[Cpl Rootes]

The ariel on the radio kept getting damaged somehow.

Yes it is a blind guess

[Gerry Chester]

Hi Corporal,

Your answer, although the aerial was unlikely to suffer damage by hitting something, is near enough to pass the next question over to you.

As can be seen in the photograph, the 9 Set's aerial not only was quite thick but also it was set in an non-flexible base. The result, especially when pennants were flying, the Vickers Light Tanks were easy to spot when advancing - dust and the mirage effect could obscure the tanks body but not usually the aerial.

More importantly, when a tank is in a defensive mode (while in laager for example) the aim was to put her hull or turret down - even in the desert this was possible. With the easily visible aerial she was soon spotted by the enemy.

Oddly enough, when the heavier tanks came along with 19 Sets aboard the practice of flying pennants persisted for quite some time - the unhorsed cavalry wallahs were slow to give up a traditional practice. As will be seen, RTR chaps also were slow to give up a tradition - thankfully, not one relating to doing battle in AFVs.

With no disrespect to the many fine one-time cavalry regiments who fought in tanks, I must share with Forum members the never forgotten words of Lt. Col. (Bushy) Broom, commander 51st (Training) RTR. Ten of us, who had qualified as driver/operators, were paraded in front of the the COs office where he bade us farewell. First, it must be explained Bushy (so nicknamed because of the luxuriant growth above his lips) as most of the senior officers had served in the Tank Corps during WW I. During the many lectures we had at Warminster it was most obvious that the wearing of the black beret by crews of non RTR units was deeply resented. Anyway, after congratulating us he said: "I have some bad news for you men - you are being posted to the North Irish Horse, damned donkey-wallopers!"

"Through mud and blood to the green fields beyond. It wasn't the tanks that won the war, it was my boy Willie."

[Cpl Rootes]

ok. My hellishly easy question is:

What was the major drawback of the Japanese type 95 light tank (it is to do with crew responsibilitys) that was disastorous when they faced American Armour in the war

[Gerry Chester]

Not being up on Japanese tanks I can but hazard a guess from what I heard from a close friend who served in Burma. Something about crews having to pass ammo into the tank while in action. Sounds far-fetched though.

Gerry

[Cpl Rootes]

Clue 1: This was a common problem among many tanks early in WW2. Tanks such as the French SOMUA S-35 Medium Tank and the German Panzer II Light Tank

[Gerry Chester]

They had no dump hatches?

[spidge]

The turret could only rotate on a 45 degree forward rotation and their armour could not withstand more than a rifle bullet.

Due to the lack of space, the commander had to load, aim and fire the main gun as well as his other responsibilities.

????????????????

[Cpl Rootes]

Spidge had the answer i was looking for. Yes due to a crew of 3 the Commander had to load and fire the gun as well as his other duties.

Your turn Spidge

[Gerry Chester]

I'm usurping your position Smidge to keep this thread going, so here goes:



What is it, where deployed and by whom?

[lancesergeant]

Originally Posted by Gerry Chester

I'm usurping your position Smidge to keep this thread going, so here goes:



What is it, where deployed and by whom?

It looks like one of them space supply vehicles they used on Moonbase Alpha in UFO/SPACE1999. LOL