T.O.M. battle re enactment [07/12] - DSC_1332.jpg (1/1)

[Indrek]

[Andrew Chaplin]

(Indrek) wrote in
:

>
> begin 644 DSC_1332.jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: DSC_1332.jpg
> `
> end

Looks like they need to do a little research. To be contemporary to WWII,
the Sexton needs to have the tac signs either of the Royal Artillery, the
Royal Canadian Artillery or the motorized artillery regiments of the Free
Polish Army. The stars are too large, and would not usually be oriented
that way. Some Tommy's tin hats and battle dress would look good on the
occupants as well.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[arjay]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> (Indrek) wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> begin 644 DSC_1332.jpg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: DSC_1332.jpg
>> `
>> end
>
> Looks like they need to do a little research. To be contemporary to WWII,
> the Sexton needs to have the tac signs either of the Royal Artillery, the
> Royal Canadian Artillery or the motorized artillery regiments of the Free
> Polish Army. The stars are too large, and would not usually be oriented
> that way. Some Tommy's tin hats and battle dress would look good on the
> occupants as well.

Thank you for putting a name to the beast. The foreshortening produced by
the lens used threw me, along with some unfamiliar aspects of the chassis.
The pictured vehicle was apparently built on a Grizzly chassis, and I'm used
to seeing the Sexton built using a Ram chassis.
Perhaps the organizers of the event populated the vehicle with men in G.I.
gear because they thought it was an M7 Priest?

> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)