Blather, Waffle and Poppycock!

[DecemDave]

Price would have to be on application because at that weight, the mint will have to  price it at costs plus the price when they obtained the bullion or current if higher. 

If it had been fixed price,  I would have ordered a couple.   With all this QE and government debt, inflation will rocket and we will need this soon to buy an army pack.

 

[Techno II]

If it had been fixed price,  I would have ordered a couple. 

   

We all know who to ask for a loan, then. 

Cheers Phil.

[fsn]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9525535/Volunteers-spend-five-days-digging-perfectly-preserved-WW2-amphibious-vehicle.html

NOT A TANK!

[Orcs]

Media definition of a Tank . I cant do flow charts on here so :-

Does it have tracks - Yes
Is it some  type of JCB/digger/ Bull dozer - No

It must be a tank
-------------------------------------------------------

Does the vehicles have wheels - Yes
Is it a civilian lorry or car - -No

It must be a tank

------------------------------------------------------

Does the vehicle have a gun of any type - Yes

Its a tank

[Heedless Horseman]

Wow. Now THAT is a 'big dig'! 

[fsn]

Getting a bit panicky now.

Napoleonic British Army:

• 17 battalions, 8 batteries and 6 cavalry regiments done.
• 2 battalions left to do; one on the painting table.

6 cavalry regiments somewhere in the post. 

I am not starting anything until the last British units are done.


'cos that's it. I am definitely not buying more British Napoleonics (1815 - I reserve the right to the Peninsula) after this lot.

[Raider4]

Gosh, impressively preserved that. And, yes, a very big dig. Not your average episode of Time Team.

[Ithoriel]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9525535/Volunteers-spend-five-days-digging-perfectly-preserved-WW2-amphibious-vehicle.html

NOT A TANK!

Armoured? Check

Armed? Check

Tracked? Check

MGIAT!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Well some of the Pacific LVT's were tanks LVT(A)-1 witrh a Stuart Turret, and LVT(A)4 witrh M8 Scott turret

[d_Guy]

Merriam-Webster:
Tank: a usually large receptacle for holding, transporting, or storing liquids (such as water or fuel)
Therefore:
The purpose of the “Not Tank” was as an anti-tank, something to hold back water rather than contain water. That said  it occurs that “to hold back” might be construed to mean “contain”. Nothing is ever simple.

Probably safe to say that it is a dam tank.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Nobby - CHEW!

[steve_holmes_11]

Well some of the Pacific LVT's were tanks LVT(A)-1 witrh a Stuart Turret, and LVT(A)4 witrh M8 Scott turret

Ahh, but did they have a hull machinegun?

Some way back I saw the Chieftain explain that this was part of the definition of tanks (Maybe just for the US army - who were completely mad for hull machineguns at some point).

[Raider4]

Not just the US - the Soviets had tanks with multi MG turrets, as did some of the early British cruisers.

Never thought it was part of the definition for "tank" though?

[steve_holmes_11]

Not just the US - the Soviets had tanks with multi MG turrets, as did some of the early British cruisers.

Never thought it was part of the definition for "tank" though?

I think it was the USA:
  Hull MG = Tank, and goes under armoured command.
  No Hull MG = Tank Destroyer; allowed into infantry and other formations.

[Ithoriel]

Was the M3 Stuart fitted with 5 MGs so the infantry couldn't steal it then?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

I think it was the USA:
  Hull MG = Tank, and goes under armoured command.
  No Hull MG = Tank Destroyer; allowed into infantry and other formations.

Thought the US definitiion was LID - TANK. No LID - TANK DESTROYER. I think the LVT's had hull MG's

[steve_holmes_11]

Was the M3 Stuart fitted with 5 MGs so the infantry couldn't steal it then?

The Prewar US tanks certainly went in for loads of fixed MGs in a big way.
They soon discovered it was a bad idea, and a maintenance nightmare, removed them and repurposed the space for extra ammo / water stowage.

[Techno II]

See if any of you have a bright idea/answer to this 'conundrum'.

Yesterday, the boiler was heating up the water...but wasn't sending it around the radiators.  (Wasn't intending to have it on for that long.....just to take the 'chill' off the house).
Hot water out of the taps was fine.

I tried ALL sorts to get it going, to no avail.
This morning..deep joy....It's working again.

It did the same thing a few weeks ago...but that was on a day when the temperature (outside) was pretty damn warm. Fair enough, the thermostat 'didn't feel the need' to heat the house, I guess.

(Coincidently, I was having a chat to one of the Tesco operatives, before the store opened, and he mentioned that his central heating hadn't come on, on the same day....So, in a way, that solved that ''mystery'.

Yesterday it was really quite chilly, so I'm a bit bemused.

Cheers - Phil.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Air lock maybe, try bleeding the radiators Phil

[Techno II]

I wondered about that....But they seemed to be OK, Ian.

If it HAD been an airlock, would/could it have gone back to working OK today ? 

Thanks for the suggestion though, Matey 

I'll go round the house later and see if any of the rads still feel cold.

Cheers - Phil.