Landships II

Mark Hansen · Legend

RE: Mks I to V - variations

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

This time two apps both from the outside and at about the same angle - they still look diferent to me.

The other reason they may look different is the amount of extension on the tensioning mechanism. The inset shot shows a fair amount of room left for the tensioner to push the idler out. The main shot shows the tensioner almost at full extension (the idler is clearly visible under the track). My guess is that the tracks are almost at the end of their working life. The tank is surrounded by Mk IV's which means that this tank is ready either for scrapping, conversion to training or supply duties. A very similar situation exists with the passenger trains I drive. The brake piston travel is something that is checked whenever we prep a train. If we saw brake piston travel similar to the amount displayed by the track tensioner, we'd have that train pulled out of service immediately.

P.S.: We would not, however, have the train scrapped or converted to training or supply duties.

P.P.S.: Still working on the identification guide. That shot of Mother from the front has been a great help. Many thanks for posting that!

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:26, 2006-01-24

-- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:29, 2006-01-24

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: Annotated shots enclosed. Re the Gaza tank this sort of luggage rack appears on more than one but not all the tanks sent to the Middle East - a localised variation? But see also the gun slot and flap I think you are right about it being a localised variation. Or perhaps it only appears on later shots of Middle Eastern tanks. A "six of one, half a dozen of the other" case. The gun port flaps present a different question, one that I feel is due to, in most cases, a perspective problem. One shot (MkI variation1a.jpg) unquestionably shows a different gun port, as described above as probably being fitted to "Mother". The knocked out "C3" (Mk1 variation5a.jpg) has it's flap missing altogether, as well as the vision flaps. I feel that the narrow appearance is mostly due to damage sustained either in battle or in subsequent stripping of equipment. Note the distorted appearance on the right edge of the slot. All the flaps on the other tanks have the rounded bottom edge. In one of the shots (MK I VARIATION2a.jpg), the flap is resting aginst the cab front. The Gaza tank (Mk1 variation3a.jpg) has it's flap propped open at about 45 degrees, creating the impression of a squarer edge to the bottom of the flap. The ditched tank with the anti-grenade roof (Mk1 variation6a.jpg) has it's flap sitting at about 95 degrees from closed, also distorting it's appearance. The wireless tank (Mk1 variation4a.jpg) still has the bolt holes above the port showing where the flap was once fitted.

Whatever the effect of battle damage it wouldn't make a slot longer as well as narrower. However I reckon I've worked out a development sequence that explains both flaps and slots - watch this space

In the case of the wieless tank the flap missing or otherwise is irelevant - it definetly has a different shaped aperture and one that matches a Lewis.

Centurion · Legend

Mark Hansen wrote:

Centurion wrote: This time two apps both from the outside and at about the same angle - they still look diferent to me. The other reason they may look different is the amount of extension on the tensioning mechanism. The inset shot shows a fair amount of room left for the tensioner to push the idler out. The main shot shows the tensioner almost at full extension (the idler is clearly visible under the track). My guess is that the tracks are almost at the end of their working life. The tank is surrounded by Mk IV's which means that this tank is ready either for scrapping, conversion to training or supply duties. A very similar situation exists with the passenger trains I drive. The brake piston travel is something that is checked whenever we prep a train. If we saw brake piston travel similar to the amount displayed by the track tensioner, we'd have that train pulled out of service immediately. P.S.: We would not, however, have the train scrapped or converted to training or supply duties. P.P.S.: Still working on the identification guide. That shot of Mother from the front has been a great help. Many thanks for posting that! -- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:26, 2006-01-24 -- Edited by Mark Hansen at 14:29, 2006-01-24

The degree of extension (which I had noticed) doesn't detract from the fact that the END of the aperture looks different.

Mark Hansen · Legend

Centurion wrote:

Whatever the effect of battle damage it wouldn't make a slot longer as well as narrower.

This tank doesn't just have battle damage. It has been stripped, presumably for weapons and parts. If you're going to be abandoning the rest of the tank anyway, who cares what further damage you do to the hull, so long as you get what you came for? If the port has been crushed in width, and you need to free the parts, you're going to have to make the hole bigger one way or another. The shell hole at the cab top has twisted and distorted the cab (look at the line of the cab top) and bent the area near the commanders flap inwards. This would cause the area to the right of the machine gun port to also bend, thus narrowing the slot, quite apart from the apparent narrowing caused by a photo being taken from an angle.

I'll try and arrange a mockup to show how much apparent distortion to dimensions can easily be caused by an off angle photo.

Mark Hansen · Legend

As promised, a mock up. Here we have "HMLS Cardboard" with forward machine gun flap in place. The photos show the differences between apparent hatch and machine gun aperture size and shape caused by angle change. The lighting, exposure, and camera aperture do not vary in these four shots but it does in the period shots of the tanks. Add to this the age and variable quality of reproduction and it's little wonder that the flaps can look different.

Another factor is the camera itself. We are used to seeing things in everyday life with binocular vision. We'd have no depth perception without it. Our brains are so used to making allowances that we don't think twice about it. We know that a book (for example) looked at from a 45� angle hasn't decreased in width. A camera cannot do this (which is a boon for film makers; some very basic special effects are done with a carefully controlled point of view). See the inset on the photo; the aperture is the same size but appears to narrow in the second shot.

I found the same picture of 528 and scanned it. The lighting or contrast in the sepia toned picture has been increased in reprinting resulting in a "washing out" of details. The aperture, when compared with the same reference aperture inset next to the sepia 528 is almost identical, especially when taking into account the lighting differences. The aperture on 528 is well lit on the bottom curve; on the reference aperture, it is more shadowed. See comparison below.

It would make life sooooooooo much easier if all photos were taken under identical conditions .