Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Sadly, one really good colour photograph I saw many years ago appears to have gone as a negative and is now only seen as a black and white print. It showed an entire unit assembly area just before Goodwood. The surviving B/W print is here:
I always remember it because the bloke in the drivers hatch of the nearest tank is wearing a bright red-brown beret or cap....
Apropos nothing in particular, some nice original colour shots of Normandy tanks:
That's a bloody shame, but he'd had a good innings. He was always very willing to respond to e-mails and discuss the minutiae of Churchill tanks and his website was excellent. Then he stopped responding a few years ago and his website then folded, so I guessed that his health was on the wane.
They're not boys , some are in their mid 30's FFS ….
Has anyone in the past 2 1/2 years pointed out that said tank isn't a tiger?
the 101st Airborne did
Until late 44 and the introduction of the M7 Grenade launcher attachment for the garand, the M1903 was the platform for grenade launching and 1 man per squad was armed with a M1903 variant.Possibly of interest but certainly not worthy of it's own thread:
Please see the phot below, shamelessly nicked from another forum I'm on:
The caption tells me, 'Soldiers of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division standing in front of a hedgerow, holding a sign shaped like a German Cross that says, "Soldiers surrender - you are surrounded."
14 July 1944, northwest of Saint-Lô.
. . . and yet at least 2 are armed with M1903 Springfields as a personal weapon-and these examples would seem to be of WWI vintage, as the rear sight is mounted on the top of the forestock just in front of the receiver.
Whilst they all appear to be tooled up and loaded fer b'ar, I'm still left with the impression that these may be support troops taking a few 'Look At Me, Mom' happy snaps. Even so, I would have expected them to be carrying M1 Carbines.
If they are NOT support elements, then I find it surprising that front line troops, at this stage of the war, have still to receive an issue of the Garand.
@ugly - maybe you have a view on this?
. . . anyway, just an idle moment wasted.
You will find neither of them in the IMDB cast list for the movie to which the post was making reference (nearly three years ago)
What Goldbricker said, remember the M1 rifle and Carbines were needed by teeth arms although even teeth arms support troops would be armed with whatever was available. The M1C sniping rifle wasnt available at that time, many 03's were retained for sniping work. Just a note some M1917 rifles were also seen in NW Europe oddly enough in the hands of UK troops as well as P14 rifles. Us troops guarding prison of war cages would sometimes be armed with M1917 rifles too!Possibly of interest but certainly not worthy of it's own thread:
Please see the phot below, shamelessly nicked from another forum I'm on:
The caption tells me, 'Soldiers of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division standing in front of a hedgerow, holding a sign shaped like a German Cross that says, "Soldiers surrender - you are surrounded."
14 July 1944, northwest of Saint-Lô.
. . . and yet at least 2 are armed with M1903 Springfields as a personal weapon-and these examples would seem to be of WWI vintage, as the rear sight is mounted on the top of the forestock just in front of the receiver.
Whilst they all appear to be tooled up and loaded fer b'ar, I'm still left with the impression that these may be support troops taking a few 'Look At Me, Mom' happy snaps. Even so, I would have expected them to be carrying M1 Carbines.
If they are NOT support elements, then I find it surprising that front line troops, at this stage of the war, have still to receive an issue of the Garand.
@ugly - maybe you have a view on this?
. . . anyway, just an idle moment wasted.
That last statement I can't get my head round. So more US civilians perished than soldiers?
Was the USA, as a society, belligerent?
