Comments for Let's do some community photo analysis.

Let's do some community photo analysis.

2007-03-02T16:30:18Z

I find the following picture very interesting, for the amount of information that it conveys.

What do you see? What story do you think it tells?

To a trained analyst (which I don't claim to be in this regard, we'll leave that to CAPT H and perhaps some of our lurkers) there is some interesting intel to be gleaned from the picture. Not huge amounts, indicators, mostly - but when you add them to others, a composite builds.

Just as interesting will be what different people see, based on the experiences they bring to the picture.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2007-03-03

2007-03-03T06:50:38Z

"Fake, but accurate."

Comment from Justthisguy on 2007-03-03

2007-03-03T06:38:41Z

Oh, on the obviously inflated tires on the gun carriage; I wouldn't put it past the Russkis back then to change wheels on a busted-up piece so they could tow it in quickly and pose the pic. They were *famous* for crude foto-forgeries. They were not alone, though. Thomas Sowell tells a story about his days as a photographer in the USMC. He was right proud of the images he captured, showing Marines earnestly exerting and, yes, sweating, while accomplishing great kewl&manly Marine tasks. He was right surprised to be called on the carpet a bit later and told that his photos were no good, because they showed Marines (horrors!) actually sweating. Apparently it was "No Sweat, and That's an Order!" back then and ther

Comment from Justthisguy on 2007-03-03

2007-03-03T06:10:37Z

Poor Dead Dude seems to be lying right next to the curb, that's why we can't see his left arm? Also, his face is decently pointed away from us. Looks posed. Looks like the folks in the doorway didn't fully obey orders to stay out of the frame. Eww! I think what I wrote above means that P.D.D. had been D. long enough for the rigor to have passed, and he got limp again, and so could be artistically arranged. Eww! Gross!

Comment from Rod Thorsen on 2007-03-02

2007-03-03T03:55:25Z

I don't see the arms crossed, looks more like gloves laid on his chest. Other than that it looks like someone had a real bad day.

Comment from Gwedd on 2007-03-02

2007-03-03T03:14:39Z

Comrades, Well, that';s definately a blast mark undrneath the gun. Bits of detritus underneath the truck as well. Having said that, either the truck is DOA, or it belongs to the fellows crewing the photographer's back up. If it was still running, it would have been used when the Russkies bugged out. Otherwise, it belongs to the group doing the image-making. The poor dead sot was, in fact, probably dragged into the frame for the pic. gardner, as well as Brady did the same during the civil war. Their images of CS dead at Gettysburg and Fort Sedgewick bear marks of being staged. Soviets had solid rubber tyres. they also used sand-filled, though the solid tyres were more common. Respects,

Comment from monkeyboy on 2007-03-02

2007-03-03T02:29:40Z

Not much to add. Post-Engagement photo, my assessment is a soviet infantryman killed sometime after the gun was knocked out. Damage to the wheel corresponds to a flat trajectory, its hard to determine by where the truck is to know if it would have blocked a shot like that. I'd like to see what is under the right front tire. The barrel is elevated for a long fight (but I'm no redleg) Perhaps they were firing on rear areas when surprised by a panzer or AT gun. Maybe the dead man was part of the team that took out the tank. If the wooden box is extra clips or grenades, it looks like a defensive fight. He was clearly expecting to be there for a while. Soviet picture, maybe Kiev, probably not Stalingrad, Leningrad or Moscow.

Comment from Trias on 2007-03-02

2007-03-03T02:11:40Z

Looks kinda photo op to me. It's all so clean and placed out.

Comment from Neffi on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T21:41:24Z

I'm with kat on the trophy photo thing... the SVT40 was not typically issued to artillery troops; they had Moisin Nagant carbines of the M1938 variety. If the Tokarev belonged to this guy he probably wasn't crewing the arty piece when he was killed, more likely he was dragged over for the photo op by Deutscher soldaten. The SVT was a weapon prized by both sides; if this one is functional (and it *looks* OK) I'll bet it left the scene on a German shoulder... my own example was captured by the Finns and re-issued to their own forces.

Comment from SangerM on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T20:55:15Z

kat-missouri--I may not have it right, but I'd bet better than even money you don't. Not a shadow. All wrong for that--really--not in the front, blow up the picture to see it and it very definitely could be a blast mark. Also, there are holes in the stabilizers, etc. This gun is inop, either from aerial direct fire (not likely) or indirect fire (likely). Though I am curous about the tires--did those guys have solid tires? that would explain other than pure dumb shrapnel luck. Also, there is no missing piece on the port shield, it's folder over toward the back... (flip up the back piece and you'll see the fit with the front piece. Person on the ground is not laid out, but his boots are missing. His weapon is dumped where it was because it was damaged. His arms are not crossed (his left is out to the left, hidden behind the rise. There are also pieces of something on the ground in the foreground. What's interesting about the body is that if you cover the legs, it looks like it's lying face down because of the 'hump' where his chest is. This could actually mean his right arm is up under him. Either way, his comrads took whatever was useful and split, leaving him for the carrion eaters.

Comment from Tbird on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T20:27:07Z

Depression just in front of the cannon. Impact crater? Truck shot up? Windshield and door window intact and tires not punctured. If the crewman was standing there when the cannon was hit, the body is in remarkably good condtion. No evidence of flash burns, traumatic injuries, or blood and clothing still intact. All the building in the background are boarded up. Either to protect the glass or possibly it's already been blown out thought the structures show no sign of damage. People in the doorway of building on right appear to be civilians. Curious but keeping their distance from the photographer for whatever reason. In the lower right hand corner of picture what appears to be part of a mess kit. Just observations. Mock me mercilessly!

Comment from Karla (threadbndr) on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T19:29:32Z

Wish we had a slightly better focus on the civilians in the background. The second one from the left is shorter, slighter than the others and appears to be wearing a skirt and heavy jacket. From the hem length - below the knee, almost midcalf and narrow cut to conserve fabric - WWII certainly. Confirmed by the vehicle at left, which isn't quite right for any of the 1920-30's trucks I'm familiar with - points to European mfg (or modification/canabalization of another vehicle, etc). Agree as to no socks = probably Russia or Slovok. There are still trees that have not been cut down for firewood and the KIA has not been stripped (except for the boots), so probably not one of the sieges. I think this would be fairly soon post battle. The earflap hat and greatcoat and possible blanket in the pack would all be very valuable resources for salvage.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T19:10:45Z

1) the truck is not damaged or is not apparently damaged. the windows are intact. The tires are not blown. It does not appear to have anything beyond dings and dents of normal use. 2) That is a shadow under the front and the middle of the gun, not a blast mark. However, the breach mechanism is gone and the front shield is damaged. There does appear to be a large amount of shadowing black stuff on the first third of the stabilizers. Could be general use. The blast shield is pushed out and forward. However, I do not see any of the pieces, particularly the larger piece that is missing from the left. I also do not see any damage to the ground or pieces of the breach. 3) person on the ground is "laid out" and his boots are missing. His weapon is also "laid out" along with some sort of ammo box for small arms, a small bag and something that looks like a mess kit in the bottom right hand corner. This person does not appear to be severely damaged, although, I can't see his face clearly. He is not missing arms or full of jagged holes which I would have expected from a direct hit from tank, air or other artillery as well as the damage that should have existed if the breach blew. My analysis: Post engagement Person on the ground most likely killed by weather or small arms fire. He is laid out with his arms crossed and his boots removed. This was not natural due to blast or even death by small arms. Someone took the time to pull him into position and lay out his supplies in order to be photographed with the captured artillery. The breach on the gun was removed to make it inoperable. The blast shield damage came from a different engagement. The mess kit in the bottom right hand corner looks interesting. either this man was surprised in the middle of his dinner or the photographer or passing troops had rifled through it looking at items the same as they did for the ammo, gun, etc. this is a captured position and an "arranged" trophy photo. **************** If I could tell how damaged the breach was, I would say this is a photo for the Red Army Artillery School: What happens when you don't clean your weapon.

Comment from Gwedd on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T17:45:07Z

Comrades, Soviet position w/lend-lease gun. Probably 1944 or so. Gun and vehicle disabled by an artillery round, you can see the blast burn underneath the gun and to it's front. Shield blown back and broken by overpressure, tube and recoil meachanism and controls damaged by splinters. Casualty is definetly a Soviet, as indicated by the cloth wrap in lieu of socks. This was part of a hasty defensive position. That's indicated by the open wooden ammo box, with some ammo bundles missing, the blanket and rifle on the ground, etc. probably over-run by the Germans after the barrage. Stuff left because of the Germans not using that calibre, need to press on, etc. City is still occupied by the civilians, as there are several in the background. Anyway, that's my 2-cent's worth. Respects,

Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T17:31:44Z

76-mm divisional gun model 1939 (F-22 USV or USV) which ceased production in 1941, replaced by the ZIS-3. Evidently many were captured in 1941 and re-employed as AT guns. Cheers

Comment from bad cat robot on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T17:19:12Z

note #1, it looks like the shieldy-thing was damaged at some point rather badly but they didn't repair it. Basing this on the tires being not visibly damaged so the Bad Event happened earlier than this encounter. note #2, I really doubt gunner-dude took up his position without shoes, so somebody took them when it was clear he no longer needed them -- but left the rifle. Crappy rifle? No more ammo? note #3, the rectangular box with slots and remaining gizmos in them. Probably not lunch or off-duty reading, more likely associated with firing the weapon, yet also not taken with. Much retreating without taking cumbersome, not-immediately-useful supplies? (Good boots *always* useful). SWAG: Stalingrad?

Comment from SangerM on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T17:14:51Z

1. Battle's passed on. Was recent engagement, maybe within 1 day or less, but no smoke, no soldiers, this was a fair bit after the action, but before the body clean-up crews or the civilians go for the clothes (his coat would be gone, those folks standing in the archway off to the right rear). 2. Gun is inop. (Is that an American gun, I don't have time to look it up). Must have taken a big hit, possibly from a airplane, or maybe a direct hit from another smaller gun: The shield is torn apart, one of the handwheels is busted, there are holes all over the thing.. It also looks like the breach-end was removed or was blown off. I don't think this was a cook-off, but I can't see the other side. From the damage, it could have been. Note the tires are not blown, which leaves me to think this was the result of an aerial attack or less likely a cook-off because the tires didn't explode from shrapnel. 3. Not sure about the gun on the ground, but even money it's inop too, 1) because it's there & 2) the rest of the crew took the time to remove the guys boots, they would not have left a gun. Not sure what's on the ground in that wooden frame next to the canvas. Extra rounds for another gun? Hard to see. 4. The truck is all shot to crap too and looks like it was cleaned out too (door left open, not human nature on something we're planning to return to). It looks like a 'between-the-wars' vintage vehicle, that does not match the gun, but I'd have to look to see if they go together. 5. The dead guy is a Slav, possibly Russian or Russian affiliate. They don't wear socks, even today (though that is changing). They wear wraps inside canvas boots. Those look like wraps on his feet. The Germans wore socks. 6. Not sure where, but that building in the back with the people in the archway, looks a thousand different buildings I've got pictures of from Germany. That looks like old German architecture, possible east German. I could do more, but that's the surface scan.

Comment from wolfwalker on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T17:12:38Z

OK, I'll play. Let's see what this amateur military historian can see... Cityscape in winter. Wrecked towed-light-artillery piece. Wrecked truck beyond it. Dead soldier next to it, wearing what appears to be makeshift winter clothing. Assuming Brad's right, the SVT-40 is a Russian battle rifle, WW2 vintage. It's known history that the Germans didn't supply winter clothes to their troops before Operation Barbarossa. So I'm gonna guess that this is a German soldier, killed in an air raid or perhaps an artillery barrage, somewhere on the Eastern Front during the winter of 1941-42.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T16:55:53Z

The question, Brad - is what might the significance of your observations be?

Comment from Brad on 2007-03-02

2007-03-02T16:50:22Z

Is that an SVT-40 on the ground by the blanket? Also, it doesn't look like the unfortunate crewman is wearing boots. I'm sure there's more but its a start.