-
I was thinking of you when I wrote my reply Frank......... Tanks and all that! Is that an extending jib over the rear? Is it a dummy barrel(s) to hide its special role?
-
-
04-04-2015 01:28 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Contributing Member
Thanks guys. I wondered about the poor guy on the machine gun. High turnover rate.
"He which hath no stomach to this fight,/ Let him depart." Henry V
-
-
-
Legacy Member
Hi Peter, the jib can be turned to front or rear. The dummy barrel is housed in place of the 75mm main gun just to look like the real tank. Nice early ARV but not as nice as the
Centurion ARV!!
Attachment 61789
-
Thank You to Frank LE For This Useful Post:
-
Advisory Panel
M31 Tank Recovery Vehicle...???
Refer back to post #2...
-
Thank You to browningautorifle For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
I stand corrected should have picked up the obs slit and the fact the gun is further to the Rt on a Lee not to mention the rivets my bad
-
-
Legacy Member
Sorry Jim, did not read #2. Absolutly correct.
Regards
Frank
-
-
Legacy Member
Is it a real color picture from 1943 or a colorized picture?
-
-
Legacy Member
Re. the photo of the M3 based recovery vehicle and “colourization”:
Colour film has been around since the beginning of the 20th Century. It just wasn’t common until after WW2.
AGFA in Germany were producing a pretty good 35mm colour transparency film in the late 1930s and this was also available in 16mm cine stock.
Mr. Kodak was right behind in the field.
Agfa introduced “Agfachrome” in 35mm (and larger) format for still cameras and Kodak did likewise with “Kodachrome”, which, I suspect, was used to take that photo. The interesting thing about both systems is that the “colour” dyes are added AT PROCESSING and thus the film has essentially three sensitized layers, each of which reacts to either cyan, magenta or yellow, just as “high-level” video cameras have a beam-splitter and “red, green and blue” CCDs (or, in the old days, “tubes”.
This is one of the reasons Kodachrome is/was a “slow” film. It is also the main reason that Kodachrome shot in WW2 still looks “fresh” in 2015. Later film types like Ektachrome and worse, Kodacolor “print” film are subject to degradation of the dyes in the negs AND the prints.
The Wehrmacht used a LOT of colour film, both in 35mm stills cameras or run through the “bomb-proof” Arriflex “S” “combat movie camera”. I was using one of these small Arris in the field as late as1996. They are, especially when fitted with Schneider lenses, a magnificent piece of kit, with a very stable pin-registered pull-down mechanism.
The US Navy was the other BIG user of colour film; think of all the nautical footage of their activities in WW2.
The problem was that colour film, then as now, is expensive to make and to process.
The Germans got around this by shooting colour “in the field”, but distributing for “local consumption”, in black and white (generally).
Limited quantities of programmes made for EXPORT / third-party propaganda, were usually printed and released in colour: Plenty of room for a film lab on an aircraft carrier.
The US army was on a tighter budget and very little “official” colour footage appeared from them. A LOT of what can be seen today is from surviving images taken by “Uncle Sam’s Tourists” with their own 16mm (or VERY early Standard 8) Bell and Howell or similar cameras, loaded with early Kodachrome.
Now, back to the hardware in question.........
Last edited by Bruce_in_Oz; 04-15-2015 at 06:44 PM.
-