G'day guys !
I'm going to build a Tasca VC Firefly with my modelling buddy in the US (he may be embarrased for others to know he's going to do OD, so his name is secret !! Ha, ha )
It'll be a Polish first Division VC Firefly (as per the Bison decal set #35050) from the Falaise area in '44.
Johan from Bison decals was kind enough to send me the pics below which were used for the decal set.
To me it seems like a post battle pic with the tank having been knocked out / abandoned.
The thing that interests me is the 'white paint' around the LH head lamp guard and down the side of the transmission casing.
Any thoughts on:
1. What that 'white stain may be.
2. What the status of this tank is: knocked out ? broken down ? etc.
PS: I think the dark area to the right of the cross, on the hull side, in the second pic looks like a 'hit'.
Cheers
Paul
Hosted by Darren Baker
1st Polish Division "Falaise Firefly "pics
ppawlak1
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 11:31 AM UTC
SSGToms
Connecticut, United States
Joined: April 02, 2005
KitMaker: 3,608 posts
Armorama: 3,092 posts
Joined: April 02, 2005
KitMaker: 3,608 posts
Armorama: 3,092 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 01:17 PM UTC
The big white stain? Paintball.
Honestly, I don't know, it looks like someone dropped a bucket of white paint, that's all.
Knocked out? It looks like it. The tank behind it has been stripped and this one looks bailed-out of. I'm thinking the cross denotes bodies inside or the crews grave next to the tank?
Honestly, I don't know, it looks like someone dropped a bucket of white paint, that's all.
Knocked out? It looks like it. The tank behind it has been stripped and this one looks bailed-out of. I'm thinking the cross denotes bodies inside or the crews grave next to the tank?
Eaglewatch
United Kingdom
Joined: December 19, 2008
KitMaker: 560 posts
Armorama: 352 posts
Joined: December 19, 2008
KitMaker: 560 posts
Armorama: 352 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 01:23 PM UTC
I agree the tank in the second pic does look knocked out as is evidenced by the gun barrel drooping down and the fact that all of hatches are open on the turret thus indicating a hasty bail out and as Matthew also pointed out the cross nearby may be for some of the crew
TacFireGuru
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 01:25 PM UTC
I don't know....look at the second and third picture...the white circle is symmetrical to the other side....I don't see a "hit," but a "mere tank" picture. Albiet, open hatches, who can say? "Cross?" More like a picket than anything else.
Not much, but my thoughts.
Mike
Not much, but my thoughts.
Mike
ppawlak1
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 01:44 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't know....look at the second and third picture...the white circle is symmetrical to the other side....I don't see a "hit," but a "mere tank" picture. Albiet, open hatches, who can say? "Cross?" More like a picket than anything else.
Not much, but my thoughts.
Mike
Mike I was thinking that the area below may be battle damage, it's not really clear but then again the pictures will probably never tell the story of what has happened. These are the only pictures I can find of a Polish FF at Falaise.
BigfootV
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 02:03 PM UTC
I disagree to a point. Cross, agree.
Photo #2 barrel looks like its bent on closest Sherman. I see no 88mm, 75mm, or any other holes in the armor, no burnt coloring of a fire from fuel lighting off or ammo. Furthest Sherman has some burnt markings, which maybe from fire on the outside stores. Possible abandonment from Artillary fire?
Photo #1, the mantle shield opening for the 17pdr. appears larger than the tapper of the 17pdr., note gaps around weapon. This maybe from a broken recoil system too. Hard to tell.
The white?? Paint? Large bird?
Those are my thoughts.
Photo #2 barrel looks like its bent on closest Sherman. I see no 88mm, 75mm, or any other holes in the armor, no burnt coloring of a fire from fuel lighting off or ammo. Furthest Sherman has some burnt markings, which maybe from fire on the outside stores. Possible abandonment from Artillary fire?
Photo #1, the mantle shield opening for the 17pdr. appears larger than the tapper of the 17pdr., note gaps around weapon. This maybe from a broken recoil system too. Hard to tell.
The white?? Paint? Large bird?
Those are my thoughts.
ALBOWIE
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 02:39 PM UTC
The Stain may be a completely different colour to white. It is very hard to discern colours from B&W photography of the period. Looking at this it appears to be a DV hull as there are no periscopes on the forward edge of the hoods.
Cheers
Al
Cheers
Al
TankSGT
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 02:54 PM UTC
There definately appears to be something wrong with the main gun. It is too far back out of battery as if the recoil system failed and it didn't return to the fireing position. Could have been a simple mechanicle that put it out of action.
Hatches open isn't always an indication of abandonment, when a tank is not in battle the hatches are usually left open. Tanks get stuffy pretty quickly. If your not being shot at or it's raining the hatches are kept open.
Another odd thing in this picture is the hull gunner hatch is open and fireflys had no hull gunner, it was taken over for ammo storage.
Tom
Hatches open isn't always an indication of abandonment, when a tank is not in battle the hatches are usually left open. Tanks get stuffy pretty quickly. If your not being shot at or it's raining the hatches are kept open.
Another odd thing in this picture is the hull gunner hatch is open and fireflys had no hull gunner, it was taken over for ammo storage.
Tom
ppawlak1
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 03:28 PM UTC
Good thoughts Brian, Al, Tom,
It seems like a lot of equipment has been taken out of it, so that may explain the 'hull gunner' hatch being open.
A DV Hull Al ?
Mmmmmm I don't fancy changing this Tasca kit into a DV Hull ! Perhaps I'll take some artistic license in this one - although I don't like doing that.....
The hoods do look a little rounded at the front corners too
Perhaps the 'paint' is a marker to say the tank has been examined ? or that it has been emptied of equipment / bodies.
Paul
It seems like a lot of equipment has been taken out of it, so that may explain the 'hull gunner' hatch being open.
A DV Hull Al ?
Mmmmmm I don't fancy changing this Tasca kit into a DV Hull ! Perhaps I'll take some artistic license in this one - although I don't like doing that.....
The hoods do look a little rounded at the front corners too
Perhaps the 'paint' is a marker to say the tank has been examined ? or that it has been emptied of equipment / bodies.
Paul
padawan_82
United Kingdom
Joined: December 10, 2008
KitMaker: 817 posts
Armorama: 555 posts
Joined: December 10, 2008
KitMaker: 817 posts
Armorama: 555 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 04:17 PM UTC
the tank in photo definately looks like it has been abandoned, though no shell hit is visible on that side the other side can't be seen and we don't have a direct view from the rear. but imo it looks like a mechanical failure, either recoil mechanism in the gun, hence the droop, or engine failure? that might also explain the supposed 'cross' a marker for recovery perhaps? or is it a warning the tank maybe booby trapped? i maybe straying of course with that one though. Ant
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 08:15 PM UTC
Hi Paul,
Hard to say what's going on here. The barrel in the mantel does look to have a problem. I'd hazard a guess that the tank has suffered mechanical failure and that the guys are taking a few pics before they bug out. All the pics seem connected, so that would be my best guess.
Al
Hard to say what's going on here. The barrel in the mantel does look to have a problem. I'd hazard a guess that the tank has suffered mechanical failure and that the guys are taking a few pics before they bug out. All the pics seem connected, so that would be my best guess.
Al
ppawlak1
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Friday, March 13, 2009 - 08:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Paul,
Hard to say what's going on here. The barrel in the mantel does look to have a problem. I'd hazard a guess that the tank has suffered mechanical failure and that the guys are taking a few pics before they bug out. All the pics seem connected, so that would be my best guess.
Al
G'day Alan !
Yeah I'm thinking there's a mechanical problem here too. The great observations about the mantle (Thanks Brian & Tom) are spot on I think !
I don't think the guys in the photo are the crew, but I may be wrong. The cap is not Polish, (it should be a black beret), and the Helmet is not a tanker's helmet either.
I'm waiting on "Polish Shermans II", so I'll see if there are any other interesting Polish VC Firefly's there before I finalise the subject of this build
Cheers
Paul
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 05:24 AM UTC
Hi Paul,
Yip, could be the recovery crew taking opportunity for a few war like pics
Al
Yip, could be the recovery crew taking opportunity for a few war like pics
Al
PITERPANZER
Gdańsk, Poland
Joined: September 11, 2005
KitMaker: 319 posts
Armorama: 316 posts
Joined: September 11, 2005
KitMaker: 319 posts
Armorama: 316 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 06:21 AM UTC
Great thread Paul.I love everythime to find something new.I `ve got polish sherman vol II,and there Yoou can find some pics more ,but mostly know us.I need and looking for pics from private family collections ,unknown to today.
Send reagards Piterpanzer
Send reagards Piterpanzer
mkenny
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: April 24, 2005
KitMaker: 95 posts
Armorama: 94 posts
Joined: April 24, 2005
KitMaker: 95 posts
Armorama: 94 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 09:08 AM UTC
If it is Falaise then it was taken a long time after the action. Note the clothing-hardly summer wear is it?
I see it as a couple of soldiers visiting an old battlefield where the wrecks are still in place. The grass seems to have grown around the wheels on the tank in the foreground.
The white paint COULD be from the large white marks painted on the far tank. When a tank was allocated to a scrapyard the owner usualy painted their name on the hull. Perhaps they spilled the pot before they manged to get the name on the firefly?
Bit of a coincidence if 2 tanks 'broke down' in the same spot!
I see it as a couple of soldiers visiting an old battlefield where the wrecks are still in place. The grass seems to have grown around the wheels on the tank in the foreground.
The white paint COULD be from the large white marks painted on the far tank. When a tank was allocated to a scrapyard the owner usualy painted their name on the hull. Perhaps they spilled the pot before they manged to get the name on the firefly?
Bit of a coincidence if 2 tanks 'broke down' in the same spot!
ppawlak1
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 10:43 AM UTC
Quoted Text
If it is Falaise then it was taken a long time after the action. Note the clothing-hardly summer wear is it?
I see it as a couple of soldiers visiting an old battlefield where the wrecks are still in place. The grass seems to have grown around the wheels on the tank in the foreground.
The white paint COULD be from the large white marks painted on the far tank. When a tank was allocated to a scrapyard the owner usualy painted their name on the hull. Perhaps they spilled the pot before they manged to get the name on the firefly?
Bit of a coincidence if 2 tanks 'broke down' in the same spot!
Great post mkenny !
Yeah the battlefield revisited quite a while after the battle - perhaps October'ish 1944 ? Although the trees in the background still have their leaves.
Paul
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 09:57 PM UTC
Hi Paul,
I'm not sure about 'quite a while afterwards' - All the accounts I've read indicate that tanks were recovered fairly quickly after a battle, there were shortages of spares as well as tanks and whilst it is quite possible wrecks littered the country side, normally anything that could be re-used was salveged by the tank recovery chaps or liberated by the passing units to replenish their own stock.
Still there are bound to have been lots of exceptions, given the nature of war. Could just have been a cold day lol, lol.
Al
I'm not sure about 'quite a while afterwards' - All the accounts I've read indicate that tanks were recovered fairly quickly after a battle, there were shortages of spares as well as tanks and whilst it is quite possible wrecks littered the country side, normally anything that could be re-used was salveged by the tank recovery chaps or liberated by the passing units to replenish their own stock.
Still there are bound to have been lots of exceptions, given the nature of war. Could just have been a cold day lol, lol.
Al
mkenny
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: April 24, 2005
KitMaker: 95 posts
Armorama: 94 posts
Joined: April 24, 2005
KitMaker: 95 posts
Armorama: 94 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 10:53 PM UTC
I have read a number of books that include photos of the veterans visiting the scene of their battles years after the event. Quite a few have pics of them standing by the wrecks still in place.
The Vimtours Tiger was not recovered until the 1970's and the ATB Magazine 48 (Wittmann on 8/8/44) has a photo of Major Peter Brassey standing in front of a Tiger still in place in 1947. German tanks yes but I have seen the same with Sherman crew accounts.
The Vimtours Tiger was not recovered until the 1970's and the ATB Magazine 48 (Wittmann on 8/8/44) has a photo of Major Peter Brassey standing in front of a Tiger still in place in 1947. German tanks yes but I have seen the same with Sherman crew accounts.
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 11:11 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I have read a number of books that include photos of the veterans visiting the scene of their battles years after the event. Quite a few have pics of them standing by the wrecks still in place.
The Vimtours Tiger was not recovered until the 1970's and the ATB Magazine 48 (Wittmann on 8/8/44) has a photo of Major Peter Brassey standing in front of a Tiger still in place in 1947. German tanks yes but I have seen the same with Sherman crew accounts.
No doubt about it, there was the litter of war from Normandy to Berlin and in a fast moving campaign stuff will get left behind and forgotten. These guys could just be tourists out for a swan for the day, checking out the battlefield.
Who kows!
Al
allycat
England - North East, United Kingdom
Joined: October 03, 2004
KitMaker: 942 posts
Armorama: 571 posts
Joined: October 03, 2004
KitMaker: 942 posts
Armorama: 571 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 12:13 AM UTC
Hi All,
I'd definitly say abandoned.
In photo #1 the headlamps are missing more evidence that the tank has been stripped (although the co-ax mg still seems to be in place?).
Can anyone make out the lettering on the background tank and what are the white patches under 699? (faults in the pic maybe?)
On a slightly different note, the time I've taken to align decals the I notice the star in photo #3!
It's enough to make you cry innit
TTFN
Tom
I'd definitly say abandoned.
In photo #1 the headlamps are missing more evidence that the tank has been stripped (although the co-ax mg still seems to be in place?).
Can anyone make out the lettering on the background tank and what are the white patches under 699? (faults in the pic maybe?)
On a slightly different note, the time I've taken to align decals the I notice the star in photo #3!
It's enough to make you cry innit
TTFN
Tom
HippityHop
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: September 13, 2006
KitMaker: 181 posts
Armorama: 58 posts
Joined: September 13, 2006
KitMaker: 181 posts
Armorama: 58 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 12:18 AM UTC
Hi Guys
Nice post Pawel - some very interesting stuff here.
My thoughts/observations for what they're worth -
1. The surrounding landscape superficially looks like Mont Ormel, although other photographs (that are categorically identified as Mont Ormel) show more tree cover.
2. The most interesting and telling thing that I note is the use of the US mackinaw/ jeep jacket. These were issued to 1DPanc staff Officers during late 1944. There are a number of photographs of Gen Maczek (no less) wearing a mackinaw during the Low Countries campaign (and beyond). So conceivably (although not proven by any means), these could be 1DPanc staff, or other senior Polish Army Officers visiting Mt Ormel (or another location between France and the Netherlands. The use of the older SD cap, would be consistent with a senior Officer, the MKII helmet possibly indicative of either staff or even an infantry or support unit.
It's my wife's birthday today, so I'm running around meeting her every whim but I'll try to stick my head into some 1DPanc references to see what I can dig up.
Cheers
Karol
Nice post Pawel - some very interesting stuff here.
My thoughts/observations for what they're worth -
1. The surrounding landscape superficially looks like Mont Ormel, although other photographs (that are categorically identified as Mont Ormel) show more tree cover.
2. The most interesting and telling thing that I note is the use of the US mackinaw/ jeep jacket. These were issued to 1DPanc staff Officers during late 1944. There are a number of photographs of Gen Maczek (no less) wearing a mackinaw during the Low Countries campaign (and beyond). So conceivably (although not proven by any means), these could be 1DPanc staff, or other senior Polish Army Officers visiting Mt Ormel (or another location between France and the Netherlands. The use of the older SD cap, would be consistent with a senior Officer, the MKII helmet possibly indicative of either staff or even an infantry or support unit.
It's my wife's birthday today, so I'm running around meeting her every whim but I'll try to stick my head into some 1DPanc references to see what I can dig up.
Cheers
Karol
ppawlak1
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 04:32 PM UTC
Thanks Karol !
Some great observations there. I'll be looking forward to your references and also what they are.
I have a few but I suspect no where near as good as what your's are.
Cheers
Paul
Some great observations there. I'll be looking forward to your references and also what they are.
I have a few but I suspect no where near as good as what your's are.
Cheers
Paul
mkenny
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: April 24, 2005
KitMaker: 95 posts
Armorama: 94 posts
Joined: April 24, 2005
KitMaker: 95 posts
Armorama: 94 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 06:19 AM UTC
ppawlak1
Victoria, Australia
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Joined: March 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,973 posts
Armorama: 1,843 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 08:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Nice Mkenny !
Anyone care to translate please ?
Cheers
Paul
lespauljames
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: January 06, 2007
KitMaker: 3,661 posts
Armorama: 2,764 posts
Joined: January 06, 2007
KitMaker: 3,661 posts
Armorama: 2,764 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 08:17 AM UTC
pic 1 is about a group of shermans turning the turrets to the right to attack a panther,
pic 2 1st pic
"damn i cant see it whislt editing"
other than that tap it into a translaor liek babelfish?
pic 2 1st pic
"damn i cant see it whislt editing"
other than that tap it into a translaor liek babelfish?