Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:14 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1087 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 28  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
hornets wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
From the HMCS Rainbow

Image



Jesus Christ, look at those feet, no wonder they were always swabbing the deck. A little personal hygiene there sailor.



I imagine a 'healthy' layer of coal dust on everything, with no amount of swabbing doing much to clean things up.

This was the ship in the Victoria dry dock...

Image

... and some dirty lads from the Atlantic's cruiser, Niobe.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19103
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Image

Quote:
B-57B observing a nuclear test during Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 12 July 1958


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4709
came across this recently:

Image

imo probably the most entertaining read about of soldiers at war

sample it here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
Monk Zombie wrote:
came across this recently:

Image

imo probably the most entertaining read about of soldiers at war

sample it here


Cheers for that. Will try and track it down.

Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 3016
GWO2 wrote:
redderneck wrote:
That stunning Lanc pic is crying out for a cheeky photos hop of an "F" immediately between the roundel and the "A"...!!!

Great, great shot.



Another, he has a set of four.

Image



I was talking to my dad on Sunday about these photos,(he`s 99 this year) and he told me they are not Lancs. they are Avro Lincolns


http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/aircr ... ro-lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 3033
GWO2 wrote:
GWO2 wrote:
redderneck wrote:
That stunning Lanc pic is crying out for a cheeky photos hop of an "F" immediately between the roundel and the "A"...!!!

Great, great shot.



Another, he has a set of four.

Image



I was talking to my dad on Sunday about these photos,(he`s 99 this year) and he told me they are not Lancs. they are Avro Lincolns


http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/aircr ... ro-lincoln


You can tell by the "Greenhouse" nose and only 2 Cannon instead of 4 Machine Guns in the rear Turret.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 4069
Location: Not America.....Fuck Yeah?
I love my old regiment

Image

Also

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:19 pm
Posts: 3291
Location: A Dreaming Spire
hornets wrote:
I love my old regiment

Image

Also

Image


That bottom photo :shock:
End thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19215
Tits were pointier in the old days tbh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:56 pm
Posts: 414
Location: Near Milecastle 11 Hadrian's Wall
Quote:
Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!


Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
TrailApe wrote:
Quote:
Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!


Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19103
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Image
Quote:
A British airplane silhouetted by searchlights on the Rock of Gibraltar as it prepared for a flight to the United Kingdom, circa 1943

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/03 ... 0Old%20Gib


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10598
Location: Mostly London........Mostly
TrailApe wrote:
Quote:
Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!


Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.


I read somewhere that Patton was hugely influential in the US Army choosing the Sherman tank over other better armoured options as he favoured speed over protection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19942
Location: balbriggan
danny_fitz wrote:
TrailApe wrote:
Quote:
Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!


Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.


I read somewhere that Patton was hugely influential in the US Army choosing the Sherman tank over other better armoured options as he favoured speed over protection.

I think it's a complete/debunked myth

Patton was a nobody when the Sherman was adopted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19215
didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19942
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19479
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too


From memory, diesel engines are more expensive to make so petrol was widely used. The Russians used diesel because of the lower freezing point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19215
happyhooker wrote:
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too


From memory, diesel engines are more expensive to make so petrol was widely used. The Russians used diesel because of the lower freezing point.


cool, thanks (err I mean Tanks)

had thought ze germans used Diesels for some reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4831
Laurent wrote:
danny_fitz wrote:
TrailApe wrote:
Quote:
Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!


Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.


I read somewhere that Patton was hugely influential in the US Army choosing the Sherman tank over other better armoured options as he favoured speed over protection.

I think it's a complete/debunked myth

Patton was a nobody when the Sherman was adopted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY




:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 4083
happyhooker wrote:
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too


From memory, diesel engines are more expensive to make so petrol was widely used. The Russians used diesel because of the lower freezing point.

Petrol has a far lower freezing point than diesel,about -60 IIRC, whereas diesel starts waxing at about -15. Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember winters where locos had to be periodically fired up and run to prevent waxing, and having to thaw tractors out with a blow torch to get the fuel to flow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19479
Yea, thought there was something wrong with that after I posted it

Can't remember why the hell the Russians used diesel then. Petrol engines are definitely cheaper to make


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19215
slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4709
happyhooker wrote:
Yea, thought there was something wrong with that after I posted it

Can't remember why the hell the Russians used diesel then. Petrol engines are definitely cheaper to make


their refineries?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10598
Location: Mostly London........Mostly
backrow wrote:
slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.


Fit tanks with 88mm anti-aircraft/flak guns
Train tank crews to shoot on the move
Lower the profile of the tank
Include sloping and sacrificial armour


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
backrow wrote:
slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.



I suppose even if the tech / knowledge was available, you'd also need the political will and infrastructure to build, and the skilled men to fly / drive / march.

I don't know the ins and outs of the early battles enough to know if the Jerries' technological edge helped them on the Western front in 1940. Was it more strategic / tactical / numerical?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19215
Nieghorn wrote:
backrow wrote:
slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.



I suppose even if the tech / knowledge was available, you'd also need the political will and infrastructure to build, and the skilled men to fly / drive / march.

I don't know the ins and outs of the early battles enough to know if the Jerries' technological edge helped them on the Western front in 1940. Was it more strategic / tactical / numerical?


well fibreglass, or even de Havilland's balsa sandwich techniques, were all known well before ww2 (as was sloped armour) - its just the idea of the application of it.

re ze germans in 1940, it deffo wasn't numerical advantage or even particularly technical advantage all the time - but was most deffo strategic and tactical superiority with Blitzkrieg, tactical doctrine that encouraged subalterns to take command if necessary, and such genius plans such as going through Belgium again to avoid the maginot line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23380
If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
Mick Mannock wrote:
If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently


I gather part of the failure of it was not getting Belgium to buy in / not able to alienate them by building through?

Our time traveller would have to get them and the Dutch to get on board, or for the French to say 'screw zem'?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19215
Nieghorn wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently


I gather part of the failure of it was not getting Belgium to buy in / not able to alienate them by building through?

Our time traveller would have to get them and the Dutch to get on board, or for the French to say 'screw zem'?


ze germans had special teams trained to take out the Maginot line , including parachuting behind it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 3016
backrow wrote:
didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?



My father in law was badly burned when his tank went up in 44. He and his twin brother were in the guards, he was wounded and his brother ended up a POW for the rest of the war. He was one of eight boys, all in the services during the war, only the youngest got killed aged 18.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:56 pm
Posts: 414
Location: Near Milecastle 11 Hadrian's Wall
Quote:
am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?


As already mentioned, the Germans used petrol engines as well. There were a few diesel engine tanks on the allied side – the Matilda II for example and the Sherman was fitted with diesel engines but mainly used by the US Marines. I think petrol engines were used mainly for commonality – bit of a logistic strain to bring in two types of fuel (and remember it wasn’t only tanks that required motion-lotion, you have to refuel all of the motorised assets).

As mentioned the Tommy cooker/Ronson urban myth has been debunked and has been discovered to be a post war term. In some of the research it has been demonstrated that the Sherman’s main rival, the PzIV was just as likely to burn when suffering a hit. Having said that it was discovered that in Normandy the British Shermans tended to go woosh, however subsequent investigations found out that the catastrophic fires were caused mainly due to ammunition. At the time the 21st Army Group were the ones having to take on the bulk of the Panzer Divisions so they were tooling up with extra ammo as they had plenty of targets to use it on and it was this unstowed ammo that was causing most of the fires. A stricter supervision of the ammo loads reduced the instances of fires.

The end of the war saw the Brits extensively using the legendary Merlin aero-engine converted to ground use and called the Meteor. I think the only post war/end of war tank that didn’t use the Comet was the Churchill which used a Bedford engine which I think was developed from a bus engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
^ :thumbup:

Re: Panzer IV crew ... not for the faint of heart.

Spoiler: show
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 4069
Location: Not America.....Fuck Yeah?
Nieghorn wrote:
^ :thumbup:

Re: Panzer IV crew ... not for the faint of heart.

Spoiler: show
Image

Image



Bloody hell I knew the desert was a hot environment but that is nuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18933
Nieghorn wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently


I gather part of the failure of it was not getting Belgium to buy in / not able to alienate them by building through?

Our time traveller would have to get them and the Dutch to get on board, or for the French to say 'screw zem'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, including aerial bombings and tank fire, and had underground railways as a backup; it also had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, supplying air conditioning and eating areas for their comfort.[1] Instead of attacking directly, the Germans invaded through the Low Countries, bypassing the Line to the north.

French and British officers had anticipated this: when Germany invaded the Netherlands and Belgium, they carried out plans to form an aggressive front that cut across Belgium and connected to the Maginot Line. However, the French line was weak near the Ardennes forest. The French believed this region, with its rough terrain, would be an unlikely invasion route of German forces; if it was traversed, it would be done at a slow rate that would allow the French time to bring up reserves and counterattack.

The German Army, having reformulated their plans from a repeat of the First World War-era plan, became aware of and exploited this weak point in the French defensive front. A rapid advance through the forest and across the River Meuse encircled much of the Allied forces, resulting in a sizeable force being evacuated at Dunkirk leaving the forces to the south unable to mount an effective resistance to the German invasion of France


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
An assortment of pics supposedly all from battle for Stalingrad (site isn't always the greatest with accuracy)

http://www.vintag.es/2018/03/horrors-of ... hotos.html

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6304
Turbogoat wrote:
If you're in Aus in the pics it's probably an L1A1, rather than an FN FAL in the first pic. Same same/ but different. Based on the same weapon.


Correct, also known as the SLR or 7.62. The other is the GPMG M60.
Amazingly for Aussies it was usually called by its TLA rather than a 'slur' for short. The only people who called them slurs were roaches. The same wannabes who conflate sas rather than say the three letters or rar rather than R A R.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 3033
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
If you're in Aus in the pics it's probably an L1A1, rather than an FN FAL in the first pic. Same same/ but different. Based on the same weapon.


Correct, also known as the SLR or 7.62. The other is the GPMG M60.
Amazingly for Aussies it was usually called by its TLA rather than a 'slur' for short. The only people who called them slurs were roaches. The same wannabes who conflate sas rather than say the three letters or rar rather than R A R.


Also, there were many who used the 30 Round straight 7.62 Bren Mag in them when they could


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21685
Location: Centre of the Universe
Capture of Lord Haw Haw

Image


Some Ruskies in Berlin
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5177
Wreck of the USS Lexington has been discovered. Couple of cracking pictures in the article:

Grumman Avenger?
Image

Image

Image


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-43296489


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1087 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 28  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Catman, Cookie Monster, dargotronV.1, de_Selby, Diabhal, DOB, EverReady, Fangle, Google Adsense [Bot], Hardtackle, Hong Kong, Jensrsa, Joost, La soule, Leinsterman, Liathroidigloine, Margin_Walker, OomPB, Oxbow, Sandstorm, SilverGrin, tabascoboy, Tehui, usermame and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group