Classification of a wreck
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Classification of a wreck
I wonder if anyone can help me. How would you describe this wreck. Short-term or long-term repair? You have to wonder how much damage a German tank has to suffer before they will admit it is dead.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 03 Oct 2019, 18:55, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3209
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: Classification of a wreck
Michael,
Meh...just a scratch. And yes, my father does smell of elderberries!
Edited to add: clearly short-term, until that bit of tree hit it.
Regards
Tom
Meh...just a scratch. And yes, my father does smell of elderberries!
Edited to add: clearly short-term, until that bit of tree hit it.
Regards
Tom
Re: Classification of a wreck
obviously, the tank was recovered in better shape, the trailer seems to habe been subject to attack whit the tank already on it. so the tank has suffered a double whammy.
road wheels on panzer burnt while on the trailer, so did the trailer tires
road wheels on panzer burnt while on the trailer, so did the trailer tires
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Classification of a wreck
The return rollers have been removed for spares as has the final drive so it is not a straight lift from the battlefield. The whole hull side panel has gone. It has suffered an internal explosion. There appears to be an unburnt cammo-net at the far end and the tree branch is obviously not ash. This tank did not explode on the trailer.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Classification of a wreck
Battlefield Lawyer.
I am a technical person that deals in statistical uncertainties. Google that. If the OP does not possess more information than a single photo, why does he ask for help...and then become aggressive when people point out the obvious?
I am a technical person that deals in statistical uncertainties. Google that. If the OP does not possess more information than a single photo, why does he ask for help...and then become aggressive when people point out the obvious?
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Classification of a wreck
The Op claims knowledge regarding 'whiteness' in these black and white photos. He seems to have dropped this 'whiteness knowledge' in recent posts.
Hopefully he can share his new found explanations of the 'whiteness' and what rust looks like, etc.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Classification of a wreck
He is not asking for help. He surprised anyone would bother recovering such a wreck. Would anyone even try and claim such an obvious total loss might not be actually be total loss?Yoozername wrote: ↑04 Oct 2019, 06:47If the OP does not possess more information than a single photo, why does he ask for help...
The answer to my musing appears to be yes.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3209
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: Classification of a wreck
Michael,
I’m thinking Sicily - but only because of the trendy shorts on figure far right. Do you have any ideas on date or place?
Regards
Tom
I’m thinking Sicily - but only because of the trendy shorts on figure far right. Do you have any ideas on date or place?
Regards
Tom
Re: Classification of a wreck
I would have guessed the internal explosion happened after it was loaded on the flatbed which would probably explain the heavy damage on the flat bed as well as the tank (it appears like the whole thing caught fire), but putting my speculation aside there are many reasons to reclaim a total loss for example the armor plate, glass,rubber, copper (from electrical system), & quartz (from radio set) could be salvaged or melted down to make more vehicles or other important items. I'm sure you are aware that copper & rubber was scarce in WWII Europe & quartz I believe had to be imported from Brazil.
Also:
Re: Classification of a wreck
Exploded tank on a burned-out recovery vehicle warrants much more information.
Otherwise:
Otherwise:
Only relevant question here.If the OP does not possess more information than a single photo, why does he ask for help...and then become aggressive when people point out the obvious?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Classification of a wreck
Michael Kenny wrote: ↑04 Oct 2019, 20:42It is posted as a MacGuffin and given the replies so far a pretty effective one.
So, for a hundreth time, with direct admission.
Basic trolling.
Re: Classification of a wreck
Please explain.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑04 Oct 2019, 20:42It is posted as a MacGuffin and given the replies so far a pretty effective one.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Classification of a wreck
The vehicles were destroyed that is evident but to be fair your first post almost begs for speculation given your comment & since the flat bed is also in ruins it would make sense for the damage to have been inflicted after the vehicle was loaded on the flat bed. Incidentally I made clear in my post that I was speculating/guessing as I gave my opinion before answering your query. I'm not sure what you are after to be honest since when anyone sees a destroyed object or really anything of interest they will always in absence of more information speculate on how & why it became that way its part of the scientific method the "hypothesis" (which in many cases can be completely wrong) & I think human nature. Objectivity comes in to play when you can ditch your opinion in favor of a new idea that has evidence behind it, loyalty to proof & fact rather than a favored opinion.
Lastly what is in that picture (see my previous post picture with red arrow)? Can anyone tell?
...I like editing my posts its a bad habit sorry about that...
Last edited by Contender on 04 Oct 2019, 21:34, edited 3 times in total.