Bit of a laugh
|
|
Thread rating:  |
simon - 30 Dec 2008 22:41 GMT Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it was on ?
Cheers, Simon
airsmoothed@hotmail.com - 01 Jan 2009 20:33 GMT > Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if > bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it > was on ? > > Cheers, > Simon Nah, they'd run out in my local newsagents, got the 1:43 scale tractor instead, marginally more useful from a model railway perspective ;-) very nice little model.
simon - 01 Jan 2009 22:28 GMT > Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if > bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it > was on ? > > Cheers, > Simon
>Nah, they'd run out in my local newsagents, got the 1:43 scale tractor >instead, marginally more useful from a model railway perspective ;-) >very nice little model. perhaps, but now have an excuse to build a couple of Spitfires and messers.. those german ones. Add a few airfix soldiers. Run LMS red and wartime black to create a what if around 1943.
you can have a ...erm ... farm ?
Also when tot asks where's his diesel, can say it got blown up by Tiger tank, but you - ploughed by a tractor perhaps ?
cheers, Simon
Dragon Heart - 02 Jan 2009 02:40 GMT > Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if > bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it > was on ? > > Cheers, > Simon The Panzerkampfwagen VI Sd.Kfz 182 was German !
Chris
simon - 02 Jan 2009 09:12 GMT > Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if > bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it > was on ? > > Cheers, > Simon The Panzerkampfwagen VI Sd.Kfz 182 was German !
Chris
Yep hence :- but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it
> was on ? Cheers, Simon
kim - 03 Jan 2009 23:52 GMT > Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if > bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it > was on ? If it still works it's German but if it's broken down it's British :o)
(kim)
simon - 04 Jan 2009 00:30 GMT >> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if >> bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (kim) I totally disagree with these xenophobic characterisations, esp 'if its going backwards then must be Italian'.
Cheers, Simon
Badger - 06 Jan 2009 17:34 GMT >>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice >>> if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I totally disagree with these xenophobic characterisations, esp 'if its > going backwards then must be Italian'. Aha, but did you know that when the PANAVIA TORNADO was first designed, the Italian version had an enhanced thrust-reverse system? It was so they could run away quicker, lol. (Standing joke within the military aviation world, there's actually no difference, but the Italians did in fact design that part of the engines....!) Badger.
Greg.Procter - 06 Jan 2009 03:22 GMT >> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice >> if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (kim) That would hold true in Britain/Western Europe, but not on the Eastern Front!
Greg.P.
simon - 06 Jan 2009 13:02 GMT >>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice >>> if [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Greg.P. Thanks for that, have spent quite a bit of time trying to justify not modelling the Eastern Front - lack of RTR seemed a poor excuse.
Cheers, Simon
Greg.Procter - 07 Jan 2009 01:42 GMT >>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice >>>> if [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks for that, have spent quite a bit of time trying to justify not > modelling the Eastern Front - lack of RTR seemed a poor excuse. If you pick the right date nothing would be running on the eastern front - but you'd need a good supply of bangs, flashes and smoke!
Greg.P.
simon - 08 Jan 2009 00:00 GMT >>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice >>>>> if [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Greg.P. Who told you about my wiring ?
Cheers, Simon
Greg.Procter - 08 Jan 2009 20:59 GMT >>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very >>>>>> nice [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Cheers, > Simon LOL!
Greg.P.
simon - 08 Jan 2009 21:35 GMT >>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very >>>>>>> nice [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> was on ? .... but in fact one was shipped to the UK in 1943 :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/34/a3710134.shtml So it will be allowed an occasional cameo role along with spifire and hurricanes perhaps.
Cant do much with this weeks 1984 model of a Challenger though.
Cheers, Simon
Trev - 08 Jan 2009 21:43 GMT >>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its >>>>>>>> very nice [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cheers, > Simon And I was under the impression that the one at Bovey was captured at Nijmegen by C sqn 4th/7th RDG
 Signature Trev Nobody is perfect. But Being a Yorkshire man is as close as you can get.
kim - 09 Jan 2009 00:08 GMT >>>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its >>>>>>>>> very nice [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And I was under the impression that the one at Bovey was captured at > Nijmegen by C sqn 4th/7th RDG What, the famous Airfix model with the missing outer wheels, track guards and radio box?
(kim)
simon - 09 Jan 2009 21:21 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its >>>>>>>>>> very nice [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > (kim) Cant be the same, the magazine says its authentic.
Cheers, simon
Greg.Procter - 10 Jan 2009 02:11 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its >>>>>>>>>> very nice [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > (kim) Sounds like you could capture that one anytime, anywhere!
Greg.P.
Greg.Procter - 10 Jan 2009 02:10 GMT >>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very >>>>>>>> nice [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Not to worry, I have a red Fokker Triplane on my layout!
Greg.P.
simon - 10 Jan 2009 21:45 GMT >>>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very >>>>>>>>> nice [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Greg.P. Hurray, I get to ask - presume its german as the fokker's a red triplane, but what type is it ?
Cheers, Simon
Greg.Procter - 11 Jan 2009 01:26 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its >>>>>>>>>> very [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Of course it's German - what type? I'd have to look it up. AFAIK there was only the one type - they were only in front line service for a few months until the Brits realized that while they were highly manuverable, their top speed was way below the best Brit. machines.
Greg.P.
simon - 11 Jan 2009 21:54 GMT >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its >>>>>>>>>>> very [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Greg.P. Oh dear, there is a very, very old joke about fokkers .....
Cheers, Simon
MartinS - 11 Jan 2009 23:26 GMT > "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >>> "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Oh dear, there is a very, very old joke about fokkers ..... Over 90 years old?
 Signature Martin S.
simon - 11 Jan 2009 23:32 GMT >> "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >>>> "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Over 90 years old? Hence have avioded repeating it - but either it didnt reach a certain colony or was too subtle.
Cheers, Simon
Greg.Procter - 14 Jan 2009 19:53 GMT >>> "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >>>>> "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Err, I had a grandfather and seven great uncles (or whatever they're called) on the Western Front and a bloke up the road from here was the first man to successfully fly a heavier than air powered aircraft, while you're talking about jokes regarding bodily functions ...
Regards, Greg.P.
simon - 14 Jan 2009 21:27 GMT >>>> "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >>>>>> "Greg.Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. Just after the Great War there was this fighter pilot who gave a talk to the older girls at an exclusive school. Pilot :- "So there I was with no ammo left, miles from home base and this fokker circling round behind me" Headmistress :- "If I may just interupt for a moment, I think I must explain to our young ladies that a Fokker was a type of german aircraft" Pilot :- "Actually ma'am this fokker was an Albatros"
Sorry, Simon
Dragon Heart - 21 Jan 2009 03:40 GMT > >>>> "Greg.Procter" <proc...@ihug.co.nz> wrote... > >>>>>> "Greg.Procter" <proc...@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Sorry, Not a lot of people know this but Anthony Fokker's first aircraft was called 'Spin 1'
Chris
Dragon Heart - 21 Jan 2009 03:30 GMT > > Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very nice if > > bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell whose side it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (kim) The Tiger Tank was propably the most feared fighting machine of WWII but towards the end of the war many either broke down or ran out of fuel. The US foces took great pleasure using them at target practice.
The next generation of Tiger Tank was due to have electronic transmittion and a rear mounted turret but due to the shortage of copper they never got built.
Chris
kim - 28 Jan 2009 19:07 GMT >>> Anyone else splashed out £2 on D'Agostin.... tiger tank. Its very >>> nice if bit out of place, but with some branches on it who can tell [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The Tiger Tank was propably the most feared fighting machine of WWII "Panther". British crews had no fear of Tigers because they could be easily surrounded.
There wasn't a single reliable British-built tank until the Comet entered service in 1944. The American-built Stuarts were immediately nicknamed "Honey" by British crews because they ran so well compared to any British-built vehicle.
(kim)
Periander - 28 Jan 2009 22:24 GMT ...
>> The Tiger Tank was propably the most feared fighting machine of WWII > > "Panther". British crews had no fear of Tigers because they could be > easily surrounded. Assuming that you survived long enough to "surround" said Tiger. I am reminded what just three of them managed at Villars Boscage.
The Panther would have been a truly great tank if (a) It's gearbox lasted more than a few miles before exploding (eventually fixed - sort of) and (b) the armour had been properly manufactured - German tank armour was notorious for its variable quality, the Panther suffered far worse than most because it armour plates were so large - and consequently difficult to make. The smaller panels on the MkIIIs and MkIVs were much easier to make. Granted it had the third best tank gun of the war the 75L70 - behind the 88L70 (of the Tiger II) and the 17pdr (and slightly later derivative the 77mmHV)of the British. Granted if you got a panther who's gearbox didn't explode and who's armour didn't shatter when someone spit at it you had a great vehicle but it was very much a case of pot luck.
And of course to the allies (especially the yanks who so very rarely faced German armour despite that which Hollywood would have us believe) every tank was a Tiger - that really says it all.
> There wasn't a single reliable British-built tank until the Comet > entered service in 1944. Matilda II, very, very reliable and kept in service all through the war. Only taken out of front line use in Europe because its turret ring was to small to take the larger turrets needed for 75mm guns.
The Valentine, granted not a main battle (medium) tank but a slow infantry tank (like the Matilda) but no reliability problems at all and even used post war (chassis, engine, transmission) in the Archer SPAT - exceptionally albeit surprisingly so effective weapon.
The Churchill from the MkIV onwards - again kept in use post war, some were even sent to Korea.
Crusader - fastest tank of the war but was the end of the line for that particular development tree.
Cromwell/Centaur - good enough, but (with the exception of some 95mmH gunned Cromwell CSs used by the Marines on D-Day) kept in second line use because the Comet was on the way.
At the other end of the scale the humble bren gun carrier (and untold variants) used throughout the war and post war.
> The American-built Stuarts were immediately > nicknamed "Honey" by British crews because they ran so well compared > to any British-built vehicle. Of course the great Sherman (which according to US sources won the war for us - well we paid enough for them) was always known as the "Tommie cooker" to the Germans because of its propensity to explode if farted at.
I might not know my "chuff-chuffs" but "bang-bangs" are another matter
:-)
 Signature All the best
Chris
Christopher A. Lee - 28 Jan 2009 23:28 GMT >Of course the great Sherman (which according to US sources won the war >for us - well we paid enough for them) was always known as the "Tommie >cooker" to the Germans because of its propensity to explode if farted >at. And the British as the Ronsons.
>I might not know my "chuff-chuffs" but "bang-bangs" are another matter >:-)
|
|
|