Da Paul Challenge

[witchbottles]

Another odd armoured car.

JR

I rather enjoy the license plate # - Freudian slip, perhaps?

 

[footsteps]

Another odd armoured car.

JR

Škoda PA.II (vzor OA.23) nicknamed Turtle.

Let me guess:

Rear-mounted engine, so the driver sits forward looking through the grill. Behind him is a gunner, operating whichever MG is appropriate for the situation.

 

[von Marwitz]

This is a good thread. More challenges!

von Marwitz

 

[Srynerson]

Let's try this. It may have been modified too far to be recognizable anymore, but Paul has amazed me on more than one occasion.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Interesting one that.

Basic chassis: Hmmm. Too many wheels for a Bren/Universal carrier, but still has the right hull front, so not a Loyd carrier.
The Windsor had both bogies facing like the front one above, but the US Ford manufactured T-16 carrier had the photographed configuration with front and rear bogies facing in opposite directions (the post war Oxford had the bogies reversed compared to above). So a T-16 with extended armour.

Is that a Biafran flag on its rear?

I suspect the photo is vertically stretched a bit, so the vehicle is nothing as tall as it looks.

 

[von Marwitz]

Hehe, Paul seems not to know the solution right away.

Maybe you finally got him with this one? :bigfire:opc1:

von Marwitz

 

[dlazov]

Well if anyone can make Paul scratch his head this thread was worth it...lol

Good job, now back to trying to find some obscure photos.

 

[Justiciar]

Japanese chassis?

 

[jrv]

Interesting one that.

Basic chassis: Hmmm. Too many wheels for a Bren/Universal carrier, but still has the right hull front, so not a Loyd carrier.
The Windsor had both bogies facing like the front one above, but the US Ford manufactured T-16 carrier had the photographed configuration with front and rear bogies facing in opposite directions (the post war Oxford had the bogies reversed compared to above). So a T-16 with extended armour.

Is that a Biafran flag on its rear?

I suspect the photo is vertically stretched a bit, so the vehicle is nothing as tall as it looks.

Perhaps an Argentine flag and a modified Vickers 1934?

JR

 

[Srynerson]

Interesting one that.

Basic chassis: Hmmm. Too many wheels for a Bren/Universal carrier, but still has the right hull front, so not a Loyd carrier.
The Windsor had both bogies facing like the front one above, but the US Ford manufactured T-16 carrier had the photographed configuration with front and rear bogies facing in opposite directions (the post war Oxford had the bogies reversed compared to above). So a T-16 with extended armour.

Is that a Biafran flag on its rear?

You're correct that it's a Biafran flag. Unfortunately, I can't confirm whether your conclusion is correct. I just happened across it on a thread about mercenaries in Africa in the 1960s and '70s here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=179878&start=15#p1810503

 

[jrv]

Bad guess.

JR

 

[olli]

Japanese chassis?

Nope it is a carrier chassis for sure with home made upper armour added

 

[jrv]

JR

 

[Srynerson]

JR

Image is broken. (The URL says "403 Forbidden" for me when I cut and paste the link.)

 

[jrv]

Image is broken. (The URL says "403 Forbidden" for me when I cut and paste the link.)

It looks fine to me. Can you see the image in the forum?

JR

 

[Srynerson]

It looks fine to me. Can you see the image in the forum?

JR

No, I can't see it embedded -- just a "broken image" graphic. (That's why I tried copying the URL itself into my address bar.) I'm curious if anyone else can see it.

 

[dlazov]

I see a broken image as well from jrv.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

It looks fine to me. Can you see the image in the forum?

JR

The reason you can see it, is the fact that it was loaded from your system; something about the digits remembering what you did.

We, the unwashed masses", only see the small red "x"

 

[Paul M. Weir]

You're correct that it's a Biafran flag. Unfortunately, I can't confirm whether your conclusion is correct. I just happened across it on a thread about mercenaries in Africa in the 1960s and '70s here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=179878&start=15#p1810503

If that was a test, you forgot the very first rule about tests: The tester must know the answer!

It would be interesting to hear how that T-16 got there. They were used by Canadians during WW2 and Dutch and Swiss post war. Maybe some left overs from the British colonial period.

 

[Srynerson]

If that was a test, you forgot the very first rule about tests: The tester must know the answer!

It would be interesting to hear how that T-16 got there. They were used by Canadians during WW2 and Dutch and Swiss post war. Maybe some left overs from the British colonial period.

I didn't really consider it a test. :OHNO: It just seemed like a perfect thing to ask about on this thread. In any event, I did some more research of my own and it appears that you are correct that it is a T-16. A poster here claims that "300 or so ex-Swiss Army T16 carriers [were] sold to [the Biafrans] via a dealer in Toronto in 1965," but unfortunately the source page he links to is no longer available.