Additional Info to Nelson's CommentsJune 9 2014 at 12:35 AM
No score for this post
|Pat Brennan (Login brennapj)|
Response to Re: Additional Info....
I guess that we have to "agree to disagree" on this matter. Unfortunately, neither of us has absolute proof and it is really a matter of opinion. The following are just a few comments.
1- One change from my earlier view is that these tanks could be Mark II to Mark VI rather than Mark IV to Mark VI.
2- I thought about responding to your various comments, then decided that I havent the energy. I will say that in the North West Europe campaign, soldiers tended to claim that every tank they saw was a Tiger and every artillery piece was an 88. Official histories tend to be more accurate than that.
3- You are right about the lack of documentation on the unit. I even checked out Japanese Monograph No. 68 Report on Installations and Captured Weapons Java and Singapore. I hoped that it would contain some info on captured AFV. However, there was nothing on them. It surprised me greatly that there was nothing there. They say how many rifles were captured, how many of them are repairable, etc. But there is nothing on captured AFVs.
4- I believe that the Carden-Loyd was used in combat during the Franco-Thai War of 1940-41. Was there someplace else that the Cardon-Loyd saw action?
Re: More Additional Info... - Nelson on Jun 9, 2014, 6:38 AM