previous post next post  

ANOTHER FIRST!!

January 26, 2007 | | Comments (27)

Remember when I predicted we'd be Number 1 in Google for "T-128 Anti-Tank Gun"?

S-C-O-O-O-O-R-R-R-E!

So much for self-aggrandizement. Back to keeping John flummoxed your online source for winning at "Trivial Pursuit 2007." Yesterday's Whatziss guesses were close (as in, Screw/Auger, Mud, 1 each), but the stogie stays in the wrapper. You drill a hole with an auger and then remove it to insert something.

Hi! I'm a screw!

In this case, the thing stays put. It's a screw anchor for a Scruple Lighthouse.

Hi! I'm a screw!

Oooops. Make that "Screw Pile" Lighthouse. Dang quadrifocals...

Oh-kayyy, so far the Great Rolling Whatziss Contest has served to amuse the artillerists and the yachting crowd (Hiya, Lex!), so I guess this one will be for the 50-ton self-propelled radio grognards.

*sigh*

Poor Sanger McGee's going all insomniacal because he can't figure out what this rattletrap is.

Hi, Sanger! I'm a tank!

When I first saw it parked on the pad out back, I thought, "Holy Riveted Armor!" I knew what it was because I'd seen an article about it in Playboy one of the flash-in-the-pan Soldier of Fortune clones that proliferated in the 1980s. Never dreamed any of 'em had escaped the scrap heap. This one almost didn't -- it was rescued by a tank collector (hey, if you've got more money than you know what to do with, you can collect *any*thing -- take a look at the waterfront in Philly or Sandy Egg-O sometime and see what the Navy's got pack-ratted).

I think the Museum swapped a truckload of main gun rounds for his M48A5 some spare parts for his heavy metal melange to get the beast, but I wouldn't swear to it. I'm in an expansive mood, so here's another view for you--

Hi, Sanger! I'm *still* a tank!

-- and, just to help Sanger off to the Land of Nod, here's a closeup...

Use exact change

Heh...UPDATE: While I was busily cobbling this, Sanger was busily slapping links into the comments for yesterday's Whatziss. He gets credit for industry, but never mentioned the nomenclature of this thing! And to keep the rest of yez honest, I fiddled his links. Saved the originals for later, cuz they're cool, but fiddled 'em for now...


Share This Article:

Categories:

27 Comments

By SangerM on January 26, 2007 1:39 AM
z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z *snort* -z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z
 
By Trias on January 26, 2007 2:00 AM
I don't suppose it's Polish?
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 26, 2007 5:45 AM
'n for the record and bragging rights - I id'd *with* nomenclature *before* Sanger did. So I can't play this round, either. It's important to me to beat Sanger at things like this. I dunno why, it just is. 8^D
 
By BillT on January 26, 2007 6:22 AM
Shush! They're supposed to think you're flummoxed!
 
By BillT on January 26, 2007 6:25 AM
Trias - Polish? Hardly -- no bayonet stud on the main gun...
 
By wolfwalker on January 26, 2007 6:52 AM
First reaction: looks like a WW2-period tank. Alas, a scan through a book on WW2 armored vehicles doesn't find any exact match. Best I can find is a vague resemblance to an Italian light tank. However, I believe I was able to identify the second vehicle visible in the left background: it looks an awful lot like an M42 Duster twin 40mm AA vehicle from the Korean War.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 26, 2007 7:38 AM
That would be because it *is* a Duster. The only vehicle specifically exempted from the tank trail speed limits at Fort Sill. Because that mogas engine ran hot, they were allowed to zip along the tank trails so they wouldn't overheat. I wouldn't suggest that the National Guard Duck Hunters driving them while I was in OBC abused the privilege... but they sure whipped by pretty fast!
 
By SangerM on January 26, 2007 9:03 AM
>'n for the record and bragging rights - I id'd *with* nomenclature *before* Sanger did. Yeah, I already *graciously* acknowledged that. An I think I spell just fine, TYVM. (I need an emoticon for mope) > It's important to me to beat Sanger at things like this. I dunno why, it just is. 8^D I think you've had google-envy since I first ID'd that "Ballisticlean" bullet in Jan 05. :-> But I do get credit for having half a clue about the screw-jobbie. "Sand-anchor for something, not so much an augur (not really cut to move dirt) as something meant to stay stuck where it was put..." Ha, I knew it! The shallow spiral reminded me of one type of anchors we used to use for our DF antennas guy wires.
 
By SangerM on January 26, 2007 9:05 AM
> I don't suppose it's Polish? No, I don't think it's Kiwi brand. And I've never seen it that color. :-D
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 26, 2007 10:12 AM
Yer right, Sanger - that's more the color of Ozzie boots. (Red Herring Alert!)
 
By AFSister on January 26, 2007 10:53 AM
Bill... love the mouse-over picture titles. LMAO
 
By SangerM on January 26, 2007 11:50 AM
> the color of Ozzie boots. I thought Ozzie boots were black, like the tanks and pants... Now that would be a Kiwi color, right? And yeah, too, I missed the mouseover titles (thanks AFS) "Hi, I'm a cruel, sadistic Aviator(ret.)" (but velly funny)
 
By wolfwalker on January 26, 2007 1:21 PM
AFSis's mention of the mouseover titles drove me to scratch a techie-itch, and thereby make a discovery. My regular browser is Firefox. Firefox, it so happens, doesn't display mouseover-titles created using the [alt] attribute of the [img] HTML tag. (This was the aforementioned techie-itch: I've used Firefox for years and endured its lack of [alt]ing in silent annoyance.) However, a quick search discovered that: a) Firefox _does_ display mouseover-titles if you define them with the [title] attribute; and b) Firefox does this because Firefox hews strictly to the HTML standards, and this is the way HTML is supposed to work. Displaying the [alt] tag contents as mouseovers is a rotten dirty nonstandard HTML trick played on web-developers and web-users everywhere by MS Internet Destroyer. O joy! Now I know how to make my own webpage images display mouseover-titles in all browsers. And I can pass on the word, so that (hopefully) others can make their image-labels readable by non-MS browsers. Thanks, AFSis.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 26, 2007 1:44 PM
Are none of the rest of you slackers even trying? Hmmm, mebbe it's time for a hint, Bill.
 
By Gwedd on January 26, 2007 2:33 PM
Comrades, It's an M-2 Light Tank, 1930's vintage, and a precursor to the M-3 and later M-5 lt tanks of WWII fame. The suspension is the give-a-way, with the rivited construction. See here for more details: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks-light/m2.asp Respects,
 
By ry on January 26, 2007 2:40 PM
Actually, I was thinking it looked like one of the one's the NAzi's used to bulldoze Poland.
 
By Toluca Nole on January 26, 2007 4:50 PM
I was in the 3rd row for Screwpile Lighthouse's bantamweight title shot.
 
By SangerM on January 26, 2007 6:37 PM
AW1 Tim, Not an M2, I called that one days ago, for the same reason, then realized I was wrong. The spacing between the two roadwheel pairs is too narrow for an M2, and there was never an M2/M3/M-anything that had that forward and upper hull design. I found it eventually, but it took time... too much time, actually... [sigh]
 
By Chris Denny on January 26, 2007 7:23 PM
Me thinks it my be Light Tank T-4E something or other. Remember US light Tanks go M-1, M-2, M-3, M-5, M-24, M-41, M-551, M-8. That last one never being adopted but its' gun and autoloader finding their way onto the Stryker AGS variant. The autoloader being an out growth of the FMC jobber used on the Navy's MK 45 mount.
 
By Justthisguy on January 26, 2007 8:16 PM
Dang! As a Florida person I shoulda caught the Screw-Pile notion! George Meade, the old goggle-eyed snappin' turtle Engineer, and builder of lighthouses in the Keys, (most still standing) and victor at Gettysburg, and all!
 
By SangerM on January 26, 2007 9:59 PM
Chris, if it helps: You missed at least one of the M-series light tanks, and the one you missed will give you a clue to the one in the picture. I'd never heard of it before, but this week has shown me there's a lot I don't know about army stuff... [/abiding shame]
 
By Rod Thorsen on January 26, 2007 10:22 PM
Looks something like one of the Marmon-Herrington USMC eval tanks, but some details are puzzling.
 
By Rod Thorsen on January 26, 2007 10:29 PM
Ok you all kept takling google which really messed me up, so according to Stuart A History of the American Light Tank Volume 1 by R. P. Hunnicutt published by Presidio Press 1992 page 217, this it the Marmon-Herrington CTMS-1TB1 produced for the Netherlands Purchasing Commission. Cant fool me.
 
By Chris Denny on January 27, 2007 1:29 AM
Sanger, I didn't forget about the M-22 Locust airborne tank. In army nomenclature of the time it was asuper light tank. Personally I think even that is somewhat generous, it is really a tankette, the army just didn't want to own up to that fact.
 
By SangerM on January 27, 2007 3:25 PM
Chris, Well, you're better at this than me. I never heard of the M22 before, but it was that tank that led me to a website with pics of the Marmon-Herrington CTMS-1TB1. If BillT ever gives them back you'll see where I ended up. I just googled the heck out of the M22 an found one site with the Marmon-Herrington name, and voila, there it was. To be honest until this week, I thought I was pretty sharp re: US tanks, WWII and later, but seemingly not. I'd never heard of the CTMS either. But I agree about it being a "tankette." I just called it what i saw it listed as, though.
 
By BillT on January 27, 2007 9:18 PM
Dunno if you could call it a tankette -- that breed were usually beefed-up machinegun carriers, and the CTMS-1TBI *does* have a main gun.
 
By SangerM on January 29, 2007 2:55 AM
True... But I could put a 105mm on a dunebuggy and it still wouldn't be a tank (hints of a whatzis I have in mind...) But heck, I don't know. I never heard of one of these things before this, so you can call it whatever you want, I'll go for it... ;-)
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.