John Tapsell

I'm trying to work out whether the markings currently carried WZ507 are genuine or just for show (also as kitted by Airfix). They look like 219 Sqn markings but I can't find any evidence that Sqn ever flew T-11s (although they might have had a T-11 when they briefly flew Venoms I suppose?). The Vampire Preservation Trust website makes no mention of 219 Sqn in their service history of the aircraft and there is no explanation for the choice of markings. Any info would be much appreciated Thanks, John

https://skytrex.com/products/ad83-british-red-cross-markings

I'd like to say 'yes', based on the fact that generally, the ARVs issued to a British Sherman Regt matched the variant the regiment was using. However, that clearly wasn't the case with Sherman Fireflies as Sherman III units operated the Sherman Vc and late Ic and Ic Hybrid. My justification for thinking that the dozers were on the same variant as the operator regt is that the dozer assembly was a kit available to be fitted to any Sherman, rather than an entire vehicle. Therefore the blade assembly could be fitted to tanks already on the regiment's books.

With regards to AoS colours, all the independent armoured brigades were eventually instructed to change to red backing squares, but the instruction to do so was I think not issued until Nov/Dec 1944? A exception was 27th Armoured Brigade who used red and 50/51/52/53 coding throughout their existence. They were originally part of 79th Armoured Div under the old 'two armoured brigades' structure (this was when 79 AD was a normal armoured division - pre-'funnies' era) . When the division was reorganised to the new 'one armoured brigade' structure 27 AB became an independent brigade, but they retained the standard armoured division AoS codes and colours.

Is it one of these? (they are different tanks - note the location of the census number) Another photo from what I think is the same sequence, shows a standard Sherman II with a 4 AB 'black rat' marking. There has been some discussion about the colours of the Arm of Service marking - it 'should' be blue over brown for an independent armoured brigade such as 4th AB. However, there is evidence that 4th AB used the blue over green more commonly associated with recce regts (it's all to do with an official order issued at army level that specified blue/green for indpendent armd bdes but then rapidly withdrawn - 4th AB doesn't seem to have followed the revised instructions). Make your own judgement.

The albums below fulfil two criteria. 1) They are the first album that I purchased from the band - the albums that made me sit up and take notice of them. 2) They are albums I still return to and play most regularly, even though I often have several other excellent albums from the band. Rush - Power Windows Def Leppard - Hysteria Jethro Tull - Broadsword and the Beastie Midnight Oil - Diesel and Dust Propaganda - A Secret Wish Latin Quarter - Modern Times Blue Oyster Cult - Club Ninja Faithless - Reverence Springsteen - Born to Run Fleetwood Mac - Tango in the Night Nightwish - Imaginaerum Dire Straits - Love over Gold

I used to purchase branded 'modelling' CA glue but I always find it goes solid in the bottle faster than I can use it. I now purchase the household blister-pack tubes from any supermarket/hardware store (example below but there are many brands as we all know). Works just as well and the smaller quanties remain 'fresh' until the tube is empty.

Humber Scout Cars were more common in armoured regiments so that would work for the armoured brigade within GAD. However, infantry units generally used the Dingo, so that would be more likely within the GAD infantry brigade. After 1942, each Armoured Division included one armoured brigade and one infantry brigade, plus the usual supporting arms such as artillery, sappers, RASC and RAOC etc. Prior to 1942, armoured divisions contained two armoured brigades and one infantry brigade but that was found to be too unwieldy, so one armoured brigade was removed to provide a more balanced arrangement.

The auxiliary turret can be found on both Crusader Is and Crusader IIs. Some Crusaders had them removed and others didn't. However, it would be fair to say that the turrets were more common on the Crusader I. The only reliable way to tell a later Crusader I from a Crusader II is to look at the front plate of the turret. The loader's vision port is more prominent on the Crusader I because the plate is thinner. The thicker armour of the Crusader II means that the vision port is flush with the turret front - the Tamiya 1/48 scale Crusader I/II kit offers both front plates. Crusader I - the vision port facing plate protrudes forwards of the turret front plate Crusader II - the vision port is flush with the turret front - note that this Crusader II has the auxiliary turret.

That's an intersting combination of features - it has the later air filters but retains the early central headlamp - definitely a Mk I.

EE had built roughly 200 Centaurs from the original orders before completing the bulk of the tanks (over 1000) as 'Cromwells'. Apparently these EE 'Cromwells' retained their Centaur characteristics apart from the engine swap - slightly lower-rated suspension springs in their Christie units and the internal track adjusters. Thus they were a hybrid specification, neither fully Cromwell nor fully Centaur.

You know John - this is all your fault. I've now started researching another Crusader II project to do in 1/48. In searching for examples of Is and IIs for comparison, I came across a photo of a Polish Crusader II (with 3 inch gun?) in Scotland with desert sand shields, boarding a Warflat. Even more interesting is that it has been up-armoured on the nose plates, something I thought had only been done to Crusader IIIs.

Yes - vehices were sent to vehicle depots from the factories and then issued on an as-needed basis, but rarely if ever in neat numerical sequences. The depots would receive batches from different factories at different times. Also, once the unit saw active service they would receive replacement vehicles from their designated FDS (Forward Delivery Squadron) when required, further muddting the waters. A (non-Cromwell) example would be 27th Armoured Brigade, chosen simply because I know it best. They were re-equipped with the Sherman III (M4A2) in early 1944 in preparation for D-Day, but they were issued with early middle and late production vehicles, delivered in small batches over several weeks and not aways from the same depot. Thus, a single Troop might have an early, middle and late example operating side by side. The well-photographed 13/18 Hussars offers really good evidence of this menagerie of types. As far as the depots were concerned, they were all 'new' vehicles - delivery mileage only - but stored (probably in a field) for anything up to 18-24 months since arriving from the USA, before being delivered to the customer - sound familiar?

No I haven't, but it's on my radar. Ian W. Toll did an excellent 'campaign' trilogy for the Pacific War covering all aspects - Pacific Crucible/Conquering Tide/Twilight of the Gods - that I would highly recommend. I'd also recommend his book 'Six Frigates' - a history of the first six purpose-built US Navy frigates and their use during the American War of Independence. James D. Hornfischer wrote an equally excellent pair of books on the US Navy during the Pacific War - Neptune's Inferno and The Fleet at Flood Tide. He also did a stand-alone book called 'The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors' that covers the battle off Samar (where a task force of destroyers and escort carriers was ambushed by a major Japanese battle fleet and managed to fight them to a standstill, albeit with severe losses). Lastly is his postumously published 'Who Can Hold the Sea' that covers the US Navy and the Cold War between 1945 and 1960. It was meant to be the first part of a series but he died before he could finish it and his widow completed the editing.

Warlord or Rubicon would be my first choices for aftermarket generic decals. They work well enough on 1/48 models. If you buy more Tamiya kits then it becomes possible to swap markings between the different kits - their Dingo Scout Car has GAD markings for example.

Just finished 'To The End of the Earth' by John C. McManus, the final part of his Pacific War trilogy covering the US Army's campaigns. The Pacific War is often seen as a 'Marine' war but there were far more Army Divisions involved right across the theatre of operations and they were just as amphibious as the Marines, so this trilogy made for an excellent read

Hi John, Question - have you confirmed that the artwork you want to follow is a Mk I? It could equally be a Mk II as they were virtually impossible to tell apart unless you can clearly see the turret front plate. The only fundamental visual difference was that the Mk II had thicker armour on the front turret face and that in turn meant the the loader's vision port frame on the left of the turret face is less prominent. The mg turret is not a reliable identifier of variant as they could be present or absent on both Mk Is and Mk IIs. The Italeri kit is an early Mk I with the original mantlet, original air filters and 'hubcap' wheels. Later Mk Is had the mantlet, air filters and roadwheels portrayed on the Tamiya 1/48 kit. If you want a better match out of the box, the Italeri Mk II kit is closer to what you need. Both the Crusaders below are Mk Is but are very different (both based on the Tamiya 1/48 kit). However, the production was incremental so there are hybrids that sit between these two extremes.

They may have used some Sherman Crabs but I'm thinking of the 738th and 739th Tank Bns (Mine Exploder). Both battalions operated a mix of T1E1 and Sherman Crabs within their TOE and both were originally CDL battalions, before their conversion to mine exploder battalions in October 1944. In February 1945, both Bns partially re-equipped with CDLs for operations along the Rhine, but retained their mine clearing duties as well.

Wartime postings to Palestine could have included 'policing' duties but there were also large training camps in the area where British units trained for deployment to active battle zones (North Africa, Sicily, Italy etc) or were sent for rest. It depends on whether your grandfather was attached to a combat unit or whether he was part of a field hospital or other rear echolon medical unit. That might help determine why he was posted hither and thither. France: Depending which unit he was attached to he may not have left France via Dunkirk but possibly somewhere such as Cherbourg or St Nazaire - British forces continued to evacuate from other parts of France for some weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation had been completed. These were not not small-scale evacuations. My partner's dad for example retreated through Normandy and up to Cherbourg with 1st Armd Div. Another example to provide some scale to the evacuations was the RMS Lancastria. She was evacuating troops from St Nazaire on 17 June when she was sunk by German bombers just outside the harbour - losses of British troops from the sinking are estimated at anything from 4000-7000 (considered to be the second-highest loss of life from a British vessel) and news about it was suppressed for much of the war.

Don't forget the Crabs were used by the Americans in small numbers too. One of the Mine Exploder Battalions had a Company (= British Squadron) of Sherman V Crabs loaned/gifted from the British - can't remember which battalion off the top of my head though.

I looked at the Order of Battle for 7th Armd Div as they were the only major 'armoured' (tank-operating) unit in Egypt in mid-1940. Picking up on Kingsman's post, yes, I am also intrigued by those 'larger' vehicles in the middle background but can't decide whether they are light tanks that just look larger or might perhaps be Cruisers or Mediums.

The photo is no earlier than about June 1940 - the presence of vehicles carrying Caunter camouflage in the photo dates it to between mid-'40 and late '41. However the presence of light tanks keeps it in the 1940 time bracket. If I read my references correctly that offers you four possibilities - all part of 7th Armoured Division: 7th Hussars, 8th Hussars, 1 RTR or 6 RTR, all of whom were fully (7th and 8th Hussars) or partially (1 and 6 RTR) equipped with light tanks.

and getting singed by the pyro Seriously though, Rammstein's image belies a highly developed and perceptive, socially aware commentary on the world and German culture in particular. As others have said, 'Deutschland', especially the film-like video that they produced for it, is a despairing review on a 1000 years of German history. It's a dark and disturbing song (and video) but it's meant to shock and make a point about how hard it can be for a German to love their country, given past events.

Migfan - you seem to think Montgomery was a good general. Tell us how Monty's performance compares to that of Slim or Alexander for example. Demonstrate how the challenges he faced differed from those the others faced and why that makes Montgomery a good commander compared to them. The fundamentals of 'command', not just during WWII but at any other time in history. don't change. Unless you understand how those many and varied elements (both positive and negative) work together, it's very difficult to determine who was 'good' and who was not. It's not all about what they achieved on the battlefield, it's also about their ability to operate in a wider environment involving politics, compromise and inspiring confidence. Don't rely on the opinions of others. Do your own independent research.

The role of a general is not just about their previous combat experience or acumen (although that is important), it's about their ability to inspire and lead troops. It's also about their value as a public relations tool to sell to the general public during a war. Generals like Patton and Montgomery were loved or hated by their troops in equal measure, but both attracted strong loyalty and the troops had confidence in them. Troops will fight better for a general they have confidence in. Patton was a confident (sometimes over-confident) strategist and lacked tolerance for subordinates who didn't fight the way he did, but his troops achieved great successes. The real issue with Patton, Montgomery, McArthur, Mark Clark and a few others was that they fully understood the value of self-promotion and had highly organised public relations teams around them - there is nothing new about 'celebrities' manipulating public perception. It doesn't mean they were bad generals but it does tend to cloud the value of other equally good, or better commanders. For me, the likes of Omar Bradley, Bill Slim and Chester Nimitz were better strategic commanders, but they didn't actively court publicity in the way that many others did and that means they were never as well known. I include Nimitz because although he was an Admiral, he had command of all forces in the Western Pacific, including air force and army, on an equal footing with McArthur in the South West Pacific. Very few Generals are truly 'great' in all aspects of their careers but dismissing them on the basis of part of their performance rather than assessing their greater contribution to the war is simplistic.