兩朵花中有小花蕊的焦距.其精準度要花一點時間才能對準...

Two flowers in the focal length of small flower its accuracy will take some time to align ...

 

Have a happy Sunday my friends.

accuracy because being shot back at sucks

The site of the former RNAS Anthorn is now a Very Low Frequency (VLF) transmitter station, which is used for transmitting orders to submarines.

From 1st April 2007, the time signal, which has been broadcast from Rugby for many years, is now broadcast from the VT Communications site at Anthorn.

The time signal is generated by the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Middlesex, and boasts an accuracy of one second.

The best known manifestation of the NPL time signal is the BBC’s “pips” but it is widely used in the transport and financial services sectors, among others. Banks use the signal to calculate to the last second how long they have held interest bearing balances, Network Rail uses it to help the trains run on time and for power generators the signal helps to coordinate switching output from one station to another.

The time signal is also used by speed cameras, and by digital set-top boxes.

Holy Trinity Church, Washington, County Durham.

 

Placed by the two surviving brothers and aunt ( Reginald, Clement John Edward Broughton and Mary Jane Briggs) of Bryan Sneyd Broughton and Thomas Henry Broughton.

 

Re No WM96688

 

www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/96688

 

"On the 21st April, drowned, through some injury to his boat in a heavy squall, between Picton and Onahau Bay, Queen Charlotte Sound, New Zealand, Bryan Sneyd Herbert Broughton, aged 24, second son of the late Rev. Bryan Sneyd Broughton, rector of Washington, in the county of Durham."

 

Deaths Notices Leeds Inteligencer Newspaper Saturday 26th July 1862

  

Saturday 4 th April 1863 The Secretary of the Admiralty begs to acquaint the Editor of The Times that the following intelligence has been received at this office:-

"Suez, April 2nd.

 

"Her Majesty's ship Orpheus was a total wreck on Manakaou Bar, New Zealand, on the 7th of February, 1863, with loss of Commodore Burnett, 22 officers, and 167 men. Nothing saved. Survivors, 8 officers and 62 men- Officers, C. Hill, lieutenant; Yonge (supposed to be D.D. Yonge), lieutenant; Amphlett, paymaster; Hund (supposed to be C.G. Hunt, midshipman); Filding (supposed to be B.W. Fielding), midshipman; H.M Barkly, naval cadet; W. Mason, boatswain; J. Beer, carpenter."

 

Further information will be given respecting the seamen who survive, but, owing to the incorrect spelling of the telegram, it is impossible to give the names with any hope of accuracy until they have been compared with the Records in office.

 

Monday 6th April 1863 THE WRECK OF THE ORPHEUS.- The following list of seamen saved from the wreck of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus has been received by telegraph at the Admiralty: - H. Brown, Henry Brown, quartermaster; Bales, probably W.E. Bayliss, painter; Morley, John Morley, capt. Forecastle; J. Wilson, there are two men of the name (one Josh. W. Wilson, capt. Hold the other Jas. Wilson, capt. Foretop); Finnis, John Finnis, capt. Maintop; Stupple, Henry Stupple, boatswain's mate; Oliert, Wm. Oliert (alias Alex. Hills), signalman; Weir, Chas. Weir, capt. Mast; Kennedy, James Kennedy, ditto; Carpenter, Robt. Carpenter, cox., cutter; Wm. Johnson, Wm. Johnson, capt. mizzen top; J. Russell, J.J. Russell (there is a Thos. Russell. A.B.); W. Russell, Wm. Russell, ordinary second class; Ward, George Ward, A.B.; Mayes, Wm. Mayes, A.B.; Walker, Hen. J. Walker, A.B.; J. Hall, there are two men of this name, John Hall (1), ordinary, and James Hall, ordinary; Quinton, John Quinton; captain foretop; Walsh, Edward Walsh, ordinary; Parson, James Parsons, ordinary; Horrigan, John Horrigan, commodore's servant; Nicholson, John Nicholson, carpenter's crew; Brigg, Edward Briggs, carpenter's crew; Partbury, Henry Portbury, A.B.; Doly, Patrick Daley, A.B.; Koop, probably Henry Corps, quartermaster; no man of the name of Koop; Taylor, James Taylor, stoker; Clus, William Clews, stoker, ran awav on the 14th of September, 1862; nothing to show that he returned to the ship; Crierson, R.M., Joseph Crouson, drummer, R.M.; Rolf, R.M., no such name (there is a R. Roe, private R.M.); Betortelp, probably Henry Bentlett, boy first class; Izers, cannot be identified; no name resembling this on the books; Banuister, no such name on the books to December 31,1862, latest returns; Hunt, probably John Higham, A.B.; Hudosted, probably George Hurlstone, boy first class; Burton, Thomas H. Burton, boy first class; Hubert, no man of the name (there are two men of the name of Herbert, viz., T. Herbert, A.B., and W. Herbert, boy second class); Ideson, John D. Ideson, boy second class; Butler, no such name on the books to 31st of December, 1862, the latest returns received; R. Young, no R. Young - there are John Young, ordinary, and George Young, A.B.; Palin, William Palin. A.B.; Geary, Thomas Geary, A.B.; Fisked, probably William Fisher, A.B.; James, no man of this name; Brown, no James Brown, there is an Alfred Brown, stoker; Snudden, Thomas Snudden, A.B.; Hubert, probably one of the Herberts mentioned above; Caland, probably James Boland, ordinary; Sparshott, William Sparshott, ordinary second class; Wells, Noah Wells, ordinary second class; Ankell, Alfred Ankelt, ordinary second class; Cochine, J.G. Cochrane, ordinary second class; Roberts, George Roberts, ordinary; Quille, probably George Turtle, ordinary; Sul, probably John G. Seale, ordinary; Newman, Henry Newman, ordinary second class; Pilbrow, probably Alfred Pilbeam, ordinary; Hahrg, probably Arthur Haggis, captain Cox.; Laryish, probably William Langush, ordinary; Tilley, Arthur S. Tilley, ordinary; Jordan, Joseph Jordan; Graann, probably Henry J. Graham, ordinary; J. Graam, Jomes Graham, ordinary.

 

Wednesday 8th April 1863 The screw corvette Orpheus, 21, 400-horse power, the news of the total wreck of which has been received, was one of the most recent of the corvette class of vessels built at Chatham dockyard, and was launched from that establishment on the 24th of June, 1860. She was considered the finest of that description of vessel ever constructed, and was built under the personal superintendence of Mr. O.W. Lang, the present master-shipbuilder at Chatham, from the designs of Sir Baldwin Walker, the then Controller of the Navy. Her dimensions were:- Extreme length, 226ft. 6in.; extreme breath, 40ft. 8in.; depth in hold, 24ft. 2in.; burden, 1,705 tons. She was fitted with a pair of 400-horse power engines by Messrs. Humphreys, Tennant, and Co. As this was her first voyage, the greatest interest was experienced for her success, and the news of her wreck was received with the deepest regret.

 

Monday 13th April 1863 (From Our Own Correspondent.)

 

Melbourne, February 24th .

 

I regret to say that I have to announce the wreck of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus, on the bar of Manukau Harbour, on the west coast of New Zealand, with the loss of 189 lives, 70 only having been saved. The Orpheus left Sydney on the 1st day of this month.

 

Monday 13th April 1863

 

LOSS OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIP ORPHEUS.

 

ADMIRALTY, APRIL 12th 1863.

 

The Secretary of the Admiralty begs to acquaint the Editor of The Times that the intelligence contained in the accompanying document has been received at this office: -

 

"Her Majesty's ship Miranda, Auckland,

February 10th 1863.

 

"My Lord,- In addition to my first letter from the scene of the wreck of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus, dated the 8th inst., sent to their Lordships, to save the Southern Mail, by the Wonga Wonga, I have to enclose for their further information the detailed narrative of Lieutenant C. Hill, the second lieutenant, and the senior surviving officer. It is a clear and truthful account of the whole proceedings of this melancholy calamity, so far as he and the other officers that are saved are acquainted with them.

 

"2. According to my judgment on the spot, nothing can exceed the exertions of Lieutenant Hill, the other officers, and all the survivors of the crew, who, at the imminent peril of their own lives, continued to the last to make the utmost endeavours to save the lives of their shipmates.

 

"3. I am informed that the Wonga Wonga was at the time of the Orpheus striking steaming out of the south channel of the Manukau. She first steamed outside the bar to the entrance of the main channel, hut afterwards returned by the south channel, picking up the boats off Paratutai Point, and towing them to the wreck by the main channel.

 

"4. Their Lordships will observe from the narrative of Lieutenant Hill that from the time the steamer was first observed, at 2 o'clock, until she reached the wreck at 6, the most critical and invaluable time was unaccountably lost, but Captain Renner and all on board the Wonga Wonga were most kind and hospitable in the treatment of the sufferers when they reached his ship from the wreck.

 

"5. Mr. Wing, pilot, and in charge of the signal station at the Manukau, informed me that the wreck of the Orpheus is precisely on the bearings laid down in Captain Drury's chart and sailing directions, since the publication of which the middle banks and small shoal on which the ship first touched have shifted bodily and considerably to the north.

 

"6. With their Lordships, I deeply deplore the loss to Her Majesty's service of an officer so distinguished as Commodore Burnett; it appears he met his much-to-be-regretted death when, sitting in the mizen-futtock rigging, the mast fell over to port, and, the top striking him on the head when in the water. It is said he never made the least exertion to save himself.

 

"7. I have directed Mr. Sullivan to proceed in Her Majesty's ship Harrier to tho Manukau Heads, and to detach an officer and party as far as he may consider necessary along the shore, north and south, for the purpose of burying, with such honours as circumstances will admit, the bodies of any officers and men, late of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus, which may be found, and also to recover such remains of the wreck, public and private, as he may deem fit; so soon as he may consider it no longer necessary to continue on this service I have directed him to conduct the duties of senior naval officer in New Zealand.

 

"8. With the view to save the mail which will leave Sydney on the 20th inst., it is my intention to proceed at once under steam to that port with the six officers and 10 of the crew of the Orpheus who have been selected as the most able to give evidence relative to the loss of that ship. These I propose sending to England by the mail steamer; the remaining 51 men and boys I have detained for disposal on the station; the majority have already volunteered for the Miranda and Harrier. I have sent 25 to the Harrier, for about which number she has vacancies to complete her complement.

 

"I have the honour to be, my Lord, your obedient humble servant,

"ROBERT JENKINS, Captain and Senior Officer.

"The Right Hon. Lord Clarence E. Paget, C.B, Secretary to the Admiralty."

 

"Her Majesty's ship Miranda, Auckland,

New Zealand, February 5th.

 

"Sir,- In obedience to your directions. I have the honour to report for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that Her Majesty's Ship Orpheus sailed from Sydney on the 31st of January. After a fine passage to the coast of New Zealand, we sighted the land on the morning of the 7th inst.; it was my forenoon watch, at about eight miles from the bar of the Manukau. Steam was got up in two boilers; we had been condensing. The ship proceeded at 12 30, under all plain sail, with starboard foretopmast studsail set, towards Manukau, steering east till 1 o'clock, then N.E.E., being the courses laid down - so the master told me - in Captain Drury's sailing directions, keeping the Ninepin on with the end of Paratutai. The hands were on deck, the ropes manned for shortening sail, the commodore, commander, and master on the bridge; leadsmen in both chains; spare tiller shipped, with relieving tackles hooked, and six men stationed; gratings and hatchway covers were placed ready for battening down.

 

"The wind S.W. to S.S.W., force 5 to 6, with occasional slight squalls; high water at 12 20. As we approached the bar there was nothing more to see, in the shape of rollers or sea on, than I had been led to expect. The signal from the pilot station had been flying since 11 30 a.m, ' Take the bar;' the commodore and master were very attentive with the chart on the bridge, and very particular in the steerage of the ship, and in their orders to the engine-room, to keep the steam at command, the signal officer and signalman on the look out. At about 1 30 she touched slightly in the after part, when the commodore gave the order, 'Give her all the steam you can.' At about 1 40 the ship struck forward; order given, 'Astern full speed;' but the engines or screw never moved. At the same time the commodore ordered 'Hands shorten sail.' The ship broached to, with her head to the northward, lurching heavily to port, the rollers setting in from the westward, which immediately made a clean sweep of the upper deck, taking away port quarter boats (second cutter and jolly boat), netting, and bulwark. Sail was shortened as far as possible, the men not being able to keep the deck; immediately the ship took the ground the hatchways were battened down, which, however, proved perfectly useless, as the fastenings were thrown up by the bumping of the ship.

 

"The commodore then ordered the port guns to be thrown overboard (we succeeded in lightening the ship of four guns), and the starboard cutter to be manned and lowered, the paymaster and secretary to place in her his private signals, the public records, and the ship's books; but from the heavy lurching of the ship the men were unable to pass all the books they wanted; some were lost overboard. Mr. Fielding had orders to land what he had got and return. After great difficulty the cutter got clear of the ship. She was reported to be swamped two or three times. When seen on one occasion five hands were observed to be missing. It was about this time a steamer was seen coming out of the Heads. The commodore next ordered the pipe, 'Hands out boats,' yards and stays having previously been triced up. The pinnace was the first boat out. As I was returning from the maintop Commander Burton ordered me into the pinnace to go to the assistance of the cutter; the commodore then came to the starboard gangway, and on my telling him that I had seen the cutter all right when on the main yard he ordered me to take Mr. Amphlett, paymaster, who was well acquainted with the place on shore, for the purpose of getting assistance. Mr. Amphlett was then and there told to jump into the boat; this was at 2 30. We shoved off, and with great difficulty, from the strong ebb, cleared the ship. As we proceeded I observed the smoke of a steamer to the southward, going seaward. After a two hours' pull against a heavy rolling sea, we weared the Ninepin, when I spoke Mr. Wing in the pilot boat. We learnt from him that the steamer in sight (now seen coming up the South Channel) was the Wonga Wonga, returning to the Heads, that he had no boat to send to the Harrier to report our distress, that there was a lifeboat hauled up on shore, hut no hands or means to get her afloat; it would take 12 men a considerable time. The cutter now came up with us; Mr. Wing and his Maories came into the pinnace, while Mr. Amphlett, two sick men, and two boys, and two others started off in the whaler of the Harrier.

 

"We pushed on to the steamer, now between the Heads, waving, signalizing, and making every effort to gain her attention; after some delay she turned round and closed us, taking pinnace and cutter in tow, proceeding to the wreck, which we reached at 6 p.m. I found her very much lying over to port, the masts all standing, the crew in the rigging above the tops, the sea at times sweeping as high as the futtock rigging; the sails had been cut away from the yards, it being impossible to furl them. Taking, in addition the pilot's boatcrew, four young Maories, with the pinnace being to windward of the wreck, we dropped down to about 30 or 40 yards on her starboard bow, hailed the men on the bowsprit and jibboom to jump off and swim for it. I picked up seven or eight; having drifted to leeward, the steamer came and towed me to windward. I dropped down a second time with the cutter in company. This time three or four more men were taken in in the pinnace, and the boatswain and four or five in the cutter. It was now about 7 o'clock; the flood tide had made, the rollers soon became very high and dangerous on the change; the jibboom broke off short by the cap; it was quite impossible, with safety to the boats, to remain any longer by the wreck. As I was going back I shouted to the wreck to make a final attempt but none would venture.

 

"The steamer picked up boats and anchored close to the north side of the South Spit; distant from wreck about three-quarters of a mile. This was at 8 o'clock. At 8 30 the masts went. Boats returned to the wreck. The Wonga Wonga kept burning blue lights, blowing her steam whistle and ringing her bell. The pinnace picked up six or eight and returned to the steamer with one or two in the last stage of exhaustion. On again nearing the wreck I found the ship completely broken up. It was a beautiful clear moonlight night, and masses of the wreck kept passing in with the flood, clinging to which Lieutenant Yonge and six or eight men were saved. The cutter got so far to leeward that she made for the land, the pinnace returning to the steamer. We remained on deck the whole night, keeping a sharp look-out. At daylight nothing could be seen of the ill-fated Orpheus but a stump of one mast and a few ribs.

 

"From the commencement and during the whole proceedings nothing could exceed the coolness and decision of Commodore Burnett, C.B., the commander, and the officers all in their stations, sentries on the spirit room and store rooms; while the good feeling and steadiness of the men was beyond all praise, remaining at their posts until ordered by the commodore to mount the rigging. Many were washed overboard in obeying orders.

 

"I must not forget to mention the gallant conduct of the Maori crew; they were first and foremost in saving lives. On going ashore in the cutter Mr. Hunt and Mr. Barkly (midshipmen) were picked up, one Maori taking Mr. Barkly on his back and carrying him along the beach to his hut. They afterwards gave them food and put them in their own beds for the night.

 

"William Johnson (captain of the mizentop) three times jumped out of the pinnace with a rope to the rescue, and was the means of saving three drowning men.

 

"On board the Woaga Wonga, which officers and men reached cold and naked, the greatest kindness and hospitality were shown and continued by all on board, until we were transferred to the Avon, where I had reported myself to you.

 

"I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

"CHARLES HILL,

"Lieutenant Her Majesty's ship Orpheus."

 

"LIST of SURVIVORS.

 

"Officers.- Lieutenant Charles Hill, Lieutenant Duke D. Yonge, Mr. E.A. Amphlett (paymaster), Mr. Bernal W. Fielding (midshipman), Mr. C. George Hunt (midshipman) Mr. H.M. Barkly (midshipman), Mr. W. Mason (boatswain), and Mr. James Beer (carpenter).

 

"Seamen.- Robert Carpenter, William Fisher, William Johnson, George Turtle, Charles Weir, W. Cooper, W. Clews, Alfred Pilbeam, Samuel Bannister, Noah Wells, John Quinton, James Parsons, Henry Walker, John Nicholson, Joseph Jordan, George Roberts, William Russell, James Summers, Henry Holmes, James Taylor, George Ward, James Kennedy, William Langrish, William Pasin, Patrick Daley, Edward Briggs, Arthur Tilly, Thomas Smedden, George Seal, Charles Fox, Thomas Burton, William Ollert, William Ball, Henry Graham, Joseph Boland, Henry Portbury, James J. Brown, James Wilson, Thomas Herbert, John Cochrane, Alfred Ankett, Henry Bentell, Henry Brown, Frederick Butter (belonging to Harrier), Henry Stuffle, James Graham, John Finnies, Edward Walsh, William Mayes, Henry Newman, Thomas Rusgell, George Young, John Hall, John Morby, William Geary, James Sparshott, George Hurlestone, Richard Roe (marine), Joseph Crowson (drummer), William Herbert,(boy second class), John Ideson (boy), William Horrigan (commissioner's servant), picked up at 1 o'clock on the 8th by a coaster off Peeponga.

 

"List of Men left behind at Sydney.- Sergeant Carter (Royal Marines), George Monday (gunner Royal Marine Artillery), Stephen Hodge (private Royal Marines), George Tarpler (boy first class), James Ashwood (boy first class), Thomas Rees (able bodied seaman), William Barnes (boy first class)

 

"CHARLES HILL,

"Lieutenant Her Majesty's ship Orpheus."

 

(From the New Zealander, February. 9th.)

Yesterday (Sunday) morning, at an early hour, the inhabitants of Auckland were horrified by the intelligence that Her Majesty's ship Orpheus, for sometime back expected on this station, had been totally wrecked in attempting to cross the Manakau bar, and with the awful loss of 185 souls out of a ship's company mustering 256 officers, seamen, boys, and marines. The Orpheus (a fine new corvette of 21 guns, 1,706 tons, 400-horse power), sailed from Sydney on the 31st of January, and after a fair passage, under canvas, fetched the land off the Manakau heads on Saturday, at noon. The ship was at that time under al plain sail, and within eight miles of the entrance, the signal flying on Paratutai -"Take the bar" - Commodore Burnett and the master being at that time on the bridge. Steam was got up at once, the commodore determining to go in. The lead was kept going; a sharp look out was observed, the ship steering east until one p.m, and then north-east by east, the Ninepin rock on with Paratutai, being in accordance with: Drury's sailing directions in the New Zealand Pilot. At twenty minutes past one the ship bumped slightly, but still went ahead. At half-past one, however, she struck hard, and orders were given to back astern full speed. The engines never moved. The ship fell off broadside to the rollers, the sea knocking away her stern post, port bulwarks, and boats, and making a clean sweep over all. The wind was from about S.W. to W.S.W., a stiff breeze, with occasional puffs. In this dismal plight Commodore Burnett, whose coolness and decision were the theme of admiration among his officers and men, gave orders to Mr. Fielding, midshipman, to take a cutter with the records, ship's books, and other articles; but, on losing sight of her, fearing that she was swamped, the pinnace was got out, and, with Lieutenant Hill and Mr. Amphlett, paymaster, was despatched to her assistance, with instructions to push on towards the heads, in the vain hope of obtaining relief through White's lifeboat, known to be stationed there, but, alas, without a crew to launch or to man her. It was an awful moment, but it is gratifying to know that even in this extremity all hands, officers and men, spoke in praise of each other, and of their gallant chief, who expressed a determination to be the last to quit the wreck, After the pinnace had left the launch was got over the side, with 40 men to lay out anchors, in the hope of making grapplings fast to haul into smooth water. The ebb title unhappily swept her under the bows, where she was stove, and nearly all on board, including Lieutenant Jekyll, were drowned. The pinnace meanwhile continued her course towards the heads, descrying the steamer Wonga Wonga, outward bound for Wellington; the anxiety was intense, as the Wonga Wonga went round and round, and nearly out of sight. Mr. Amphlett at length succeeded in reaching the pilot-boat, and came up with Her Majesty's ship Harrier at half-past 10 p.m. The Wonga Wonga anchored, and the few survivors were transferred to her from the boats of the Orpheus that had been got afloat. Had White's lifeboat been able to be launched and manned, we are informed, upon good authority, that most of the ill-starred seamen might have been saved. The heavy guns broke adrift about half-past 5 p.m., tearing up the upper-deck, and driving the people to the tops, the rollers becoming longer and heavier. The masts stood firmly until the flood tide made, at about half-past 6 p.m. They then began to go, and the ship parted in halves, the rollers breaking into the tops. When the masts went the crew gave three cheers, as if taking farewell of life. Commodore Burnett and the young gentlemen were in the mizzen-top; all perished, except Mr. Barkly, son of the Governor of Victoria. Commander Burton, Mr. Strong, sailing-master, and Lieutenant Mudge, who were in the main-top, were lost, the men who were saved succeeded in getting down the jibstay on to the jib-boom, dropping from thence into smooth water, where they were packed up, Many of the survivors are badly wounded, having legs and arms broken, and bodies bruised and maimed by the guns and falling spars. A despatch from Commander Sullivan, Her Majesty's ship Harrier, which was received on Saturday at midnight, informed his Excellency the Governor of this disastrous event. With the utmost promptitude the military authorities took measures to render every possible assistance- Colonel Gamble, Quartermaster-General; D.A.C.G. Chislett, Mr. Hamley, Ordnance Department, with six ambulance waggons, tents, 500 blankets, and other requisites, setting out for Onehunga. The steamer Avon, in charge of Mr. Hunt, with Captain Jenkins, Her Majesty's ship Miranda, started yesterday at 2 a.m. On reaching the heads not a vestige of wreck was to be seen. The Wonga Wonga, which was on her way to Onehunga, on meeting the Avon, transferred the rescued seamen to that vessel, and proceeded on her southern voyage. The Harrier got under weigh on Sunday at 4 a.m, but, having grounded, had to wait the flood tide, and did not get fairly away until nearly 3 p.m., about which hour the Avon had got back. The Avon went at once alongside the Onehunga wharf, and every care and attention were paid to the wounded.

 

(From the Wellington Spectator, February 12th.)

The Wonga Wonga sailed, from the Onehunga wharf, Manakau, on the 7th inst. On arriving at the bar she noticed a vessel in the offing, apparently a man-of-war, but the signal being up to take the south channel the Wonga proceeded on her course. On getting well clear of the channel, Captain Renner noticed the vessel to be labouring very heavily, and apparently ashore. Captain Renner then proceeded to the outer entrance of the north channel, but being unable to take it, on account of the heavy sea on the bar, he returned to the pilot station by the south channel. On reaching the pilot station he found two boats, the pinnace and cutter, belonging to the ill-fated vessel. The pilot then went on board the Wonga Wonga, took the two boats in tow, and proceeded to the scene of the disaster. On arriving there he found that the sea was making a complete breach over the vessel, and she was, of course, labouring very heavily. He then found it was impossible to get alongside with the boats, in consequence of the heavy sea; the boats were therefore pulled as close as possible under the jib-boom, and the officers in charge of them called to the crew to jump into the water and they would pick them up, as it was the only chance left of saving their lives. Several of the men jumped into the water and were picked up by the boats, but some were unfortunately drowned in the surf by the drawback. At this stage of the proceedings the scene was most appalling, the only chance of the crew getting saved being to jump into the boiling surf. All the men at this time were clinging to the rigging. The Wonga was steaming as close as possible to the scene of the wreck, and was fearfully tossed about by the tumultuous sea. The boats then returned to the Wonga, having succeeded in picking up about 14 of the drowning men, several of whom were nearly exhausted, and every means was adopted to restore animation, by the application of hot blankets and other remedies. Several who were wounded and very much bruised had their wounds dressed, and every possible attention shown them. The boats in charge of the second lieutenant again gallantly put off to the wreck, and succeeded in rescuing several from a watery grave. By this time it was becoming dark, and the pilot, not deeming it prudent for the Wonga to remain in the position she was then in, proceeded a short distance into the channel and anchored. At about 9 o'clock, the night being very dark, the foremast went by the hoard, casting all the poor fellows who were clinging to it into the raging billows. Immediately after, the main and mizzen masts fell over the side, carrying the last of the crew with them. During all this time the most superhuman exertions were being made by the second lieutenant and the gallant crews to rescue his unfortunate shipmates. The two boats, and a boat belonging to the Wonga, were pulling about amid the breakers until past midnight. All hopes of saving any more lives having vanished, the pinnace, in charge of the second lieutenant, returned, with several more of the unfortunate crew, to the Wonga, and the cutter proceeded into the pilot station, being unable to fetch the Wonga, and landed seven more of the crew in safety, including the son of Sir Henry Barkly, the Governor of Victoria, who was saved after clinging to a spar for upwards of two hours. The Wonga burnt blue lights, and showed other signals until daylight, in hopes of picking up any more of the unfortunate crew who might be floating about the wreck. At daylight, the Wonga proceeded towards the wreck, but by this time a very small portion of the ill-fated vessel was to be seen. Commander Jenkins returned thanks to Captain Renner, his officers, and the crew of the Wonga Wonga, for their praiseworthy exertions and unremitting kindness to the sufferers. One of the captains of the mizzentop, who was one of the boat's crew, gallantly jumped overboard three times, and on each occasion succeeded in saving a shipmate from a watery grave. The Commodore was last seen in the mizzen rigging, and is supposed to have been killed by the falling of a spar. The wind was about W.S.W., with a terrific sea on, when the Orpheus went to pieces.

 

Tu 14 April 1863 We have received the following letter from our Malta correspondent, dated Valetta, April 7:-

"… Several officers and men who were saved from the wreck of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus, on the coast of New Zealand, arrived this morning in the mail packet Ellora, on their way to England. They are Lieut. Hill, Lieut. Yonge, Paymaster Amphlett, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fielding, and Mr. Barkly, midshipmen ; Mr. Mason and Mr. Beer, petty officers, and nine seamen".

Sa 18 April 1863

THE LOSS OF THE ORPHEUS.

 

The following dispatch, addressed to the Duke of Newcastle, has been received from Sir G. Grey, Governor of New Zealand :-

 

"New Zealand.- No. 10.

"Government-house, Auckland, February. 9th, 1863.

 

"My Lord Duke,- I have the honour to report to your Grace the total loss of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus on the bar of the harbour of Manukau, on the west coast of the North Island, nearly opposite to the harbour of Auckland, which is on the east coast.

 

"2. Eight officers and 61 men have been saved from the wreck. The names of the officers who have been saved are given in the enclosure to this despatch. Twenty-three officers and 158 men, it is believed, have perished, as the vessel has entirely gone to pieces, and nothing has been seen of them. The names of the missing officers are also given in the list transmitted herewith.

 

"3. It is positively known that many of these officers and men have perished, as they were killed in the presence of the survivors by spars and ropes. There is but slight hope that any of them can be alive; they can only have escaped by having been first washed out to sea on some spar, and then washed up on some other part of the coast.

 

"4. The ship, as far as I can collect, was rather to the southward of the port, and was, at about half-past 1 o'clock in the day, with beautiful weather and a fair wind, making the harbour under steam and sail, going about 12 knots. Running thus from the southward, she was intending to make the passage across the bar as laid down in the chart of 1853. Since that time the bar has shifted about three-quarters of a mile to the northward. She was thus rather more than that distance too far to the southward, and touched first on a small shoal off the middle banks, and in a few minutes ran directly on to them, where there is always a very heavy sea, and where her position (about four miles out at sea) was hopeless.

 

"5. At between 4 and 5 o'clock a small coasting steamer, the Wonga Wonga, which was going out of the harbour, seeing her peril, went to her assistance, but, from the heavy sea and breakers, was unable to get very near her; but the boats of the Orpheus, and those of the men who were saved under the shelter of the steamer, managed from time to time to pick up others. They were aided in the most gallant and determined manner by three Maories from the pilot-station, who steered the boats.

 

"6. The conduct of Commodore Burnett, his officers, and men, was perfectly heroic. I have never heard instances of greater courage, carelessness of self, and efforts to save the ship and others than have been detailed to me. At about 9 at night the mainmast went overboard; the other two masts went in less than 20 minutes afterwards. Those of the crew (and they were a great number) who had not yet been washed overboard or killed by spars and ropes were on the masts and rigging, and the poor fellows, as these went, gave three parting cheers and then perished. I am told that not a murmur or cry was heard from the wounded and dying, and yet the manner of some of their deaths was terrible. Altogether it is one of the most affecting events that I have ever heard of, and yet one that excites admiration from the courage, self-devotion, and energetic resignation both of the many who perished and the few who were saved.

 

"I have, &c.,

"G. GREY.

"His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, K.G."

 

Monday 20th April 1863 The surviving officers and crew of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus arrived on board Her Majesty's ship Victory, at Portsmouth, on Friday evening. They arrived at Portsmouth by Southampton steampacket from the Peninsular and Oriental Mail Company's mail steamship Ellora, which arrived the same day at that port from Malta.

Tuesday 21st April 1863

HOUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY, APRIL 20th.

THE LOSS OF THE ORPHEUS.

 

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he wished to put a question to the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty respecting the loss of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus. In the official despatch on the subject it was stated that the Orpheus, with nearly 200 men, was lost by acting, not against, but in compliance with the directions on her chart. The telegraph flag was flying telling her to take the bar; she obeyed that instruction, and consequently was wrecked. Since the chart was issued in 1853 the sand at the mouth of the harbour of Manukau had shifted three quarters of a mile, and in consequence the Orpheus, instead of passing safely through the channel, ran directly on the sand itself. He wished to know what steps the Admiralty were in the habit of taking for the purpose of collecting information on foreign stations respecting those changes which occurred from time to time, affecting the navigation of the waters, and also what means they adopted for disseminating that information among the officers of the Royal Navy. Although it appeared, in this instance, that Her Majesty's officers were unacquainted with the changes which had occurred, the merchant service were not ignorant of them, for he had seen in the newspapers a letter from a gentleman commanding a vessel stating that they were perfectly well known.

 

The Duke of SOMERSET said he was very glad that the noble earl had put this question to him, as it enabled him to correct an error on the subject which was very generally prevalent, and into which it was not surprising that the noble earl had fallen, as it originated in the despatch of the Governor of New Zealand, Sir George Grey. In that despatch it was stated that the Orpheus "was intending to make the passage across the bar, as laid down in the chart of 1853. Since that time the bar has shifted about three-quarters of a mile to the northward. She was thus rather more than that distance too far to the southward." The loss of this fine vessel and her gallant crew was, of course, a most painful calamity; but it would have been an additional source of deep affliction if it had been caused by any neglect on the part of the Admiralty in not communicating to the officers of the ship the changes which were known to have occurred in the harbour. So far, however, was this from being the case that the chart of 1853 was brought to the notice of the Hydrographer's office in October 1861, if not before. A notice was then drawn up, of which printed copies were sent to the senior officer on the Australian station to be distributed among the ships in that quarter. That notice contained the following observations:-

 

"It appears from the Remark Book of Her Majesty's Ship Niger, 1861, by Mr. A.J. Veitch, Master, that since the survey by Captain Drury in 1853 the main channel at the entrance of Manukau Harbour has shifted; as also, that the code of signals noticed in the New Zealand Pilot, 2d edition, 1859, established to assist the navigation of that port, has been altered and improved. The following directions will therefore supersede those heretofore in use; but from the shifting nature of the entrance of Manukau Harbour, as also of all the bar harbours on the west coast of the north island, the seaman is cautioned to pay strict attention to directions that may be given from pilot stations; and it has been recommended as a general rule, in the absence of direct information of changes in the channels, that that portion which has the smoothest water between the breakers should be taken, as experience has proved that it will be the deepest part. The north side of the middle banks forming the southern boundary of the main channel to Manukau, has extended to the northward since Captain Drury's survey in 1853; vessels, therefore, in crossing the bar of this harbour should bring the Nine Pinrock twice its base open to the southward of Paratutai, N.E. by E 1/2 E., which will lead about a cable northward of the breakers."

 

Thus seamen were first cautioned that the bar had shifted, and were also warned to pay attention to local information. When he first heard of the accident to the Orpheus he was anxious to learn whether the officers had ever received the notice he had referred to. He therefore sent for the issue book kept in the Hydrographic-office, from which it appeared that the New Zealand notice was sent to Portsmouth on the 13th of November, 1861, and placed in No. 5 Australian chart box. On the 23d of November the Orpheus drew this No. 5 box from the store at Portsmouth, and the receipt for it was in the Hydrographic-office at the Admiralty. Moreover, he had seen an officer on Saturday who was saved from the wreck, and he believed he was correct in stating that the master of the Orpheus had a copy of the very notice in question in his hand at the time when the ship was approaching the bar. He mentioned these circumstances only to justify the Admiralty, and to show that they were not chargeable with neglect of duty. He would not go any further into the subject. Their lordships were doubtless aware that the Orpheus, which drew about 20ft. Of water, was rather larger than most of the ships frequenting that coast, end he might observe that he had sent her out at the pressing instance of the Governor of New Zealand. The noble earl had also asked what were the general orders of the Admiralty in regard to correcting charts. Those orders were very complete. The master was directed to note all inaccuracies in any of the charts supplied to the ship, but especially in those published by the Admiralty, so that the requisite alterations might be presently made. If the position of the dangers was materially altered, or if he should discover any new dangers, or if the inaccuracies he might have detected in the charts were of importance, he was to report them immediately to the Admiralty by the very first opportunity, so that no time should be lost in applying the necessary corrections. Again when a hydrographic notice of a newly discovered shoal, or rock, or other danger, or a notice to mariners of a new or altered light, buoy, beacon, or land mark was received on board, the master was at once to insert it in red ink in all the charts to which it referred (these being always enumerated at the foot of the notice), and to note the same in the sailing directions, reporting to the captain that he had so done. Further, all masters of Her Majesty's ships were required to report to the Secretary of the Admiralty through their captain the discovery of any new rock or shoal. The governors of our colonies and. Consuls constantly sent information, and harbour masters and merchant captains did the same. The Hydrographic-office was in constant correspondence with all parties who could furnish information in all parts of the world. As soon as it was received, if considered of fair authority, it was printed and circulated not only for the benefit of Her Majesty's ships, but of all navigators. He thought he had now shown that every care was taken to let the officers of the unfortunate vessel know the changes which had taken place in the harbour. He had only to add that there would of course be an inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the loss of the ship, and then probably it would be ascertained how the vessel came to be lost. He could not omit bearing testimony to the gallant bearing of all on board, and of the crew of the vessel, who, seeing death coming upon them in all directions, still remained steadfast in the execution of their duty. (Hear, hear.) Such conduct afforded a fine example of the courage and bravery of British seamen. (Hear, hear.)

 

Thursday 23rd April 1863 A meeting has been convened for this evening by the Mayor of Portsmouth to raise a public subscription for the relief of the widows and orphans of those who perished in the wreck of the Orpheus.

Tuesday 28th April 1863 A naval court assembled on board Her Majesty's ship Victory at Portsmouth yesterday, for the trial, pro forma, of Lieutenant Charles Hill, and the surviving officers and crew of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus at present in England, for the recent loss of that ship on the bar of Manukau harbour, New Zealand. The Court was composed of Captain Scott, Her Majesty's ship Victory, President; Captains Wainwright, Cumming, Phillimore, Chamberlain, and Seccombe. After hearing a mass of evidence the finding was read by the Deputy Judge-Advocate. It set forth that Her Majesty's ship Orpheus was lost by striking on the bar of Manukau harbour on the day named when going over it in the absence of pilot boats, that no blame whatever was attached to Commodore Burnett, C.B., or any of her officers and crew, that the conduct of every officer, seaman and marine, man and boy. On board was deserving of the very highest praise, and that Lieut. Hill and the officers and crew of Her Majesty's late ship Orpheus were therefore fully and honourably acquitted. Lieut. Hill was then called to the table and presented with, his sword. The President observed that the duly he had to perform was gratifying to him, and that he only expressed the feelings of the entire Court when he said they felt the sword could not be intrusted to better and more worthy hands. It gives us much pleasure to announce that Her Majesty has forwarded to Sir Michael Seymour, G.C.B., Admiral Commanding at Portsmouth, through Sir C. Phipps, the sum of 50 l. for the families of the crew of the Orpheus, with the expression of Her Majesty's deep sympathy with them in their affliction.

 

Monday 4th May 1863 NO ONE TO BLAME!- The Court of Inquiry into the circumstances of the wreck of the Orpheus have found, as we are informed by the correspondent of The Times, "that Her Majesty's ship Orpheus was lost by striking on the bar of Manukau harbour when going over it in the absence of pilot boats, that no blame whatever was attached to Commodore Burnett, C.B., or any of her officers and crew, and that the conduct of every officer, seaman and marine, man and boy, on board was deserving of the very highest praise." This is an astounding verdict, excepting only the last award of praise, thoroughly merited, as regards the conduct of all after the stranding of the ship. The conclusion is that no one was to blame for the loss of a fine ship in broad day and moderate weather. It was all right that she should attempt to enter the Manukau when she had no particular business there; it was all right that she should make the attempt at the wrong tide-time; in short, it was right that she should be lost, for, if there was no wrong in the case, all was right and as it ought to be. It is unfortunately true that the officers to whom blame may have attached are not living to defend themselves, but surely the Court, without direct censure, might have adverted to the causes of the disaster with regret, and thus given a warning against the repetition of the same errors. As it is, the imprudences seem approved and sanctioned. The Court found that the ship was lost by striking on the bar when going over it in the absence of pilot boats. The bar is only a cable's length in breadth. The ship first touched according to lieutenant Hill's statement, at 1 30, and 10 minutes afterwards struck, where she went to pieces. Was she, then, with all plain sail set, a fair wind and steam power in aid, 10 minutes in traversing the distance of a cable's length? If not, she was clearly not lost on the bar, the passage over which could not have taken her two minutes, allowing for a strong adverse tide, As we have before explained, the ship was lost on the Middle-bank, inside the bar, and not at all in the position of a bar, which, as the name expresses, stretches across the entrance of a harbour or port; the Middle lies in the direction of the entrance, and its north side makes the south side of the channel. The Court find that the ship struck in the absence of pilot boats. Does it pretend that pilot boats could be expected? Is it not well known that the pilot boats do not go beyond the Heads, and in the Admiralty Sailing Directions is it not notified that "it is seldom possible for the pilot boat to board outside the bar?" And for this reason all necessary directions for guidance are given by signals from the pilot-station at the Paratutai Head. But if, notwithstanding information to the contrary, the ship expected a pilot and was disappointed, why did she not then give up the attempt and proceed to Auckland, with a leading wind round the north cape? It is quite clear that the disaster was referable to the culpable error of attempting the entrance at the wrong tide-time. The signal for water was made at 11 30, 50 minutes before high water, and if there was only water enough in the 50 minutes before high water, there would certainly not be more in the 50 minutes after high water; for wherever there is a great inlet like the Manukau the first of the ebb runs off quicker than the last of the flood runs in. But with only 50 minutes of tide time to be depended on the Orpheus did not even approach the bar till that time had expired, and might have passed it about an hour and ten minutes after high water, when the tide had fallen full half a fathom, and a rougher weather-tide had increased the sand, and by so much diminished the depth of water necessary to float the long-legged ship over the shoals. But there was nothing to blame in all this according to the view of the naval Court, and officers are free to follow the example of Commodore Burnett without fear of censure, living or dead. Certain we are that the unfortunate officer himself must in his last moments bitterly have reproached himself for the rash error by which he had thrown away the lives of so many brave men. No officer's character stood higher than that of Commodore Burnett, and inexplicable is the one fatal error closing his meritorious career. Perhaps it never occurred to the Court to inquire what the ship was doing from daybreak, when she made the land, to midday, when she ran her head against the shore, for the answer might give some clue to the cause of the disaster, and might not be reconcilable with the foregone conclusion that no one was to blame.- Examiner.

Friday 8th May 1863

THE LOSS OF THE ORPHEUS.

 

The Secretary of the Admiralty presents his compliments to the Editor of The Times, and encloses herewith a return of the names of officers and men who perished in the wreck of Her Majesty's late ship Orpheus, at the entrance of the Manukau harbour, New Zealand, on the 7th. Of February last.

 

Admiralty, March 7th.

A Return of the Names of Officers and Men lost in the Wreck of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus, at the entrance of the Manukau harbour, New Zealand, on the 7th of February, 1863:-

William F. Burnett, C.B., commodore; William T.F.W. Mudge and Arthur Jekyll, lieutenants; William D. Strong, master; Robert H. Burton, commander; William J. Taylor, second master; William Hudson, gunner; Arthur R. Mallock, Thomas H. Broughton, and George H. Verner, midshipmen; John J. Tozer, master's assistant; Rev. C.B. Hazlewood, chaplain and naval instructor; William H.P.M. Gillham, secretary (assistant-paymaster); A.D. Johnston, assistant-paymaster; James Clarkson, asistant surgeon; Samuel Stephens, chief engineer; Jqhn H. Adams, engineer; John H. Vickery, assistant-engineer, 1st class; Edward J. Miller, William Adamson, and George F. Gossage (lent from the Miranda), assistant-engineers, 2d class; Henry N. Naylen, clerk; George Townsend ship's steward; George Drew, ship's cook; John E. Ernest, master-at-arms; Thomas Osborne, ship's corporal; William Sheppard and John Hutchins, gunner's mates; Frederick Kemp, Jesse Bignell, Frederick Allen, and Thomas Lane, leading stokers; Michael Mahoney, ropemaker; John Bosworthick, blacksmith; John Trautman, carpenter's mate; David Norris, caulker; George Warn and Henry Corps, quartermasters; Arthur Haggis, captain's coxswain; Thomas Ambrose, captain maintop; Abraham Voice, coxswain launch; John Pascoe and William Milliard, boatswain's mates; Joseph. W. Wilson; captain hold; John Plowman and Edwin Lloyd, captains after guard; George .Redman, armourer; George Vincent, caulker's mate; John Davey, captain mizen-top; Samuel…Mardon, musician; Henry Baker; cooper; Henry Redman, sick berth attendant; Alfred Brown, Felix Kelley, James Healy, David Lee, John H. Maud, Charles Davis, Andrew Dorey, William Swain, and John Moore, stokers; Thomas Smith, sailmaker's crew; William E. Bayliss, painter; George Hill and Thomas Kelly, leading seamen; Charles E. Rowe, John Pay, and Henry Thomas, carpenter's crew; John Wealords, shipwright; John Woodrow, tailor; George Anderson, Thomas Parke, Henry Sheargold, Edwin Pelham, William H. Hutton, William Stephenson, James M'Cloud, John Higham, Joseph Northover, Charles Whetnam, Jos. J. Rockett, Robert Randall, Edward Jenner, John Young, Edward Springer, John Hewitt, Harry Mark, George Mark, and William Cowen, A.B.sa; William Hillier and John Davis, ordinary second-class; John Cleary, James Hall, Daniel Hines, Edward Finn, William Rowland, Herbert Adams, John Bennett, William Blackwill, Alfred Crow, Noah Jones, Samuel Cole, James Ellis, William H. Bickle, William Halson, and Peter Newman, ordinary; Henry Weatherstone, William Palmer, Henry Welstead, and William Gannaway, ordinary second-class; William H. Cookney, wardroom steward; Thomas Stoneham, wardroom cook; C. Goldshmidt, captain's steward; Augustus Holdgate, captain's cook; John Hyde, gunroom steward; George Mitchell, gunroom cook; Samuel Scutt, engineer's servant; and John Phillips, engineer's cook. Boys.- James Goodwin, William F. Hunt, Edward M. Warner, William Jenkins, John T. Broadway, William J. Bridle, William J. Orchard, John Kingston, Jeremiah Murphy, Denis Donoghue, George Duffett, Charles Theobald, George Bunce, John Simmonds, Isaiah Thompson, and John Searle, first-class; Samuel F. Spencer, ship's steward's-boy; John H. Avis, William Davis, Albert Early, John Knowlden, Richard White, William Hartfield, Robert H. Veal, Thomas Callaghan, and John Cronin, second-class. Royal Marines.-Edward E. Hill, First lieutenant Royal Marine Artillery; John Howard, corporal; Sidney Hoyle, Thomas Ladbroke, John Shorthouse, David Horsfield, Daniel Davis, John Greenwood, Henry Baylam, Francis Starrs. Michael Flanaghan, Thomas Coffins, John Durkin, George Gray, Thomas Doren, Thomas Littlefield, Stephen Foyle, Henry Gardner, and John Heard, privates; William Tranter, sergeant; George Gordon, corporal; John Broad-wood, Bradley Starkay, John Kave, Lewis Cramp, Henry Crabb, Samuel Johnson, Thomas Brady, William Hobbs, Thomas Letheby, George King, William Burge, Charles Heath, and John Vince, gunners; Charles Binfield, Thomas Tucker, Henry Pearin, George Trott, Thomas Gould, John Williams, James Andrews, John P. Masters, Richard Williams, John Budge, and Peter Pafford. Privates.

 

Thursday 14th May 1863 WRECK OF THE ORPHEUS.- In 1846, in Her Majesty's sloop Osprey, Captain Patten was wrecked off the same fatal bar. An interesting account of the encampment of her crew, and their march across the island of New Zealand, was written by the steward (Mr. H. Moon), and has been introduced by the Lords of the Admiralty into the seamen's libraries. The signal then was, "Take the bar, there is no danger."

 

THE ORPHEUS RELIEF FUND.- The widows and relatives of the crew of Her Majesty's late ship Orpheus, who have been paid allotments for the month of April from the relief fund at the Royal Naval College, Portsmouth, are requested to attend at the college at 11 o'clock on Friday morning, the 29th of May, when they will be paid the allotments for the month of May. Any other applications for relief from the fund will be considered at the same time.

 

Monday 14th March 1864

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

 

MELBOURNE, JANUARY 25th.

 

… I may also mention in this place that since the disastrous wreck of the Orpheus the entrance into Manukau harbour has been re-surveyed, and carefully, and, I am informed, rather profusely buoyed, so that the steamers engaged in the inter-provincial trade, and those in communication with the General, pass into and out of that harbour with safety and with perfect confidence.

 

Thursday 14th July 1864

THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

 

MELBOURNE, MAY 26th.

 

The following is the list of killed and wounded. Where not described otherwise, the wounds are gunshot wounds:-

HER MAJESTY'S SHIP CURACOA - Lieutenant Hill, late of the Orpheus; and James Harris, ordinary seaman.

 

Thursday 17th November 1864

DREADFUL ACCIDENT AT TUNIS.

 

(From the Malta Times, November 10th.) It is with feelings of the deepest sorrow that we have to announce in our columns to-day an awful calamity which has befallen a number of brave officers and men of Her Majesty's ship Orlando. The afflicting tidings reached us by the French steamer Du Trembly, arrived this morning from Tunis, that one of the boats of the above ship bad been upset in a squall, by which no less than eight of her officers, three seamen, and a marine lost their lives. All the men-of-war in port, including the French frigate Cacque, immediately hoisted their flags half-mast high, and a like testimony of regret and mourning was shown by many of the merchant ships in harbour as soon as the lamentable event became more generally known. The following are the particulars of this catastrophe, which will cast many families into mourning:-It appears that on the morning of the 3d inst. a cutter, having on board the following officers:- Lieutenant Still, Surgeon Wood, Captain Pritchard, Royal Marines, Midshipmen De Gama, Fielding, and Kemble, Master's-Assistant Hadrill, and Assistant-Paymaster Stratford, together with four seamen and one marine, left the ship on a picnic party, and while returning at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, under sail, a sudden squall struck the boat when about a thousand yards from the shore, and upset it. Seeing that all hope of assistance was impossible, one of the seamen struck out for the shore, and was the only man saved. Ha was found the next morning completely exhausted, and in a state of nudity, in an Arab hut, by another cutter of the Orlando, which, in tow of the French frigate Invincible's steam launch, had been sent in search of the missing boat. Up to the last accounts, nothing else had been found but a jacket belonging to Mr. Fielding and a portion of the mast of the boat, notwithstanding the Orlando and gunboat Tyrian had been searching under steam for the missing bodies. The Orlando is expected here at the end of the week. The sudden calamity has created universal sympathy in Tunis. All the foreign representatives displayed their flags half-mast, and waited upon the English Consul-General to express their condolence and respect for the memory of so many brave officers and men appertaining to Her Majesty's naval forces, whose untimely death has deprived their Sovereign and their country of their valuable service. The Commandant Chevalier of His Imperial Majesty's ship Inflexible, senior officer of the French Emperor's ships in those waters, also waited on Her Majesty's representative for the same purpose, and the French Consul-General wrote besides a very feeling letter of condolence on the melancholy occasion. His Highness the Bey also conveyed his sympathy and condolence, and gave strict order to the authorities on the coast to protect any of the bodies of the victims that might be washed ashore, and to report immediately any such occurrence to the Bey's Government. It is a circumstance of melancholy interest to know that Mr. Fielding, one of the unfortunate young officers who perished on this occasion, was one of the few survivors of the lamentable wreck of Her Majesty's ship Orpheus on the coast of New Zealand.

 

"Bryan and Clement Broughton had emigrated to the western arm of Queen Charlotte Sound on the South Island. Clement had settled in Anakiwa and become a sheep farmer. Bryan, too, was almost certainly engaged in farming, exploiting the knowledge he had acquired at the Royal Agricultural College in Cirencester in 1853/4, where he had obtained a Diploma, coming first in the Order of Merit and having his name placed on the College’s Honours board. He had married Maria Theresa Downes, at Picton, Marlborough, in January 1861.

 

After playing cricket in Picton on 21 April 1862, Bryan Broughton was sailing home between Picton and Onahau Bay when a heavy squall arose and he was drowned, aged 24, leaving a wife and a three-month-old baby daughter (Broughton Bay in Keneperu Sound was subsequently named after him). " Mark Penfold from an article about their aunt pittvillehistory.org.uk/bios/9920.html

 

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

 

LOST - Commodore, W. F. Burnett, C.B., Commander, R. H. Burton, Lieutenants, Mudge and Jykill Master, W. D. Strong Lieutenant Hill, Royal Marine Artillery Rev. C. Hazlewood, Chaplain Mr Gillham, Commodore's Secretary Mr Johnston, Assistant Paymaster Dr Clarkson, Surgeon Dr Crawford, Assistant Surgeon W. Stephens, Chief Engineer W. D. Taylor, Second Master A. R. Mallock, Midshipman T. H. Broughton, G. H. Verner, J. J. Tosser, Master's Assistant ; Mr Avian, Assistant Clerk J. H. Adams, Engineer 3lr Vickery, Engineer's Assistant Mr Miller, Engineer's Assistant, Mr Adams, Engineer's Assistant G. Gossage, Engineer's Assistant W. Hudson, Gunner.

 

SAVED - Lieutenant Yonge Lieutenant Hill Paymaster Amphlett Mr Barfely, Midshipman Mr Fielding,Midshipman, Mr Hunt, Midhsipman, Mr Mason, Boatswain Mr Beer, Carpenter and 61 Sailors and Marines.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Messerschmitt Me 262 was the world’s first jet fighter to enter production, the first to enter full squadron service, the first to score an air-to-air victory, and is easily one of the WWII Luftwaffe’s most famous planes.

During WWII, Germany used the facilities of Avia in occupied Czechoslovakia to sub-contract parts for the Me 262 and planned to start full production of the fighter there. The western part of Czechoslovakia was liberated in the conflict’s final 96 hours by Soviet troops, in the last battle of WWII in Europe, and the commandeered aviation production facilities were captured intact. After the end of the war, the Czechoslovak air force decided to restart production of the Me 262, designated Avia S-92 (S for Stíhač, meaning "fighter").

 

The S-92 was an exact clone of the Me-262 and nearly identical in all respects. Although no completed pattern plane was available, the Czechoslovaks had complete blueprints, some completed sub-assemblies and a wide variety of parts at their disposal, together with the technical manuals and, most importantly, the production jigs and tooling needed to build the Me-262. In late 1945, it was decided to have Avia commence production of the Me-262. The airframe and flight controls were manufactured in kit form by Avia, the Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines were re-designated M-04 and manufactured by Avia’s Malesice Engine Repair division. The whole plane itself was basically hand-assembled by workers at the Letnany Research Institute, so that S-92 production was neither easy nor fast: each individual plane took about 7,000 man-hours to make.

 

The armament was the same as the WWII planes, four MK 108 30mm guns in the nose. The MK 108 was an exceptionally hard-hitting aircraft gun, in an era when most fighters were still armed mainly with .50cal machine guns. Just a few rounds were enough to take down a four-engined bomber, even though the weapon’s range and accuracy were rather limited. All of the guns that were originally mounted onto the Avia S-92s were actual German WWII-manufactured MK 108s. The Me 262’s optional underwing rocket racks were omitted, since the respective R4M missiles were not available anymore, but the ventral hardpoints for bombs and – more important – drop tanks were retained.

 

Production of the first S-92 started at the end of 1945 and ran into early 1946. After last-minute checks, Avia transferred the first S-92 to the Czechoslovak air force in June 1946 and the type first flew on 27 September 1946. The plane crashed three days later, though. The second S-92 first flew on 24 October 1946, and it was the first to enter squadron service. All of the few S-92s built for the Czechoslovak air force were assigned to a special all-jet subunit of the 5th Fighter Squadron, which was based at Kbely airbase near Prague, being tasked with air defense of the capital.

 

Early into the project, it became obvious that a conversion trainer would be needed, and three two-seat models were built, which were designated CS-92 (C for cvičení, meaning “exercise”). They were essentially identical to the S-92, except that a second seat replaced some of the fuel. The first CS-92 (the third airframe overall) was delivered in September 1946 and first flew on 12 October 1946. A total of three CS-92s were built for the Czechoslovak air force.

 

In general, the Czechoslovak air force’s findings with the S-92 were the same as post-WWII evaluations of the Me-262 by the USA and Great Britain: It was, of course, much faster than the WWII-design propeller fighters it served alongside in the late 1940s. For example, the La-7 “Fin”, the fastest Czechoslovak piston-engine fighter at the time, was almost 150 knots slower, but the S-92 was less maneuverable when going into a turn than the La-7. However, as a jet it maintained its lift through the turn, whereas a propeller-driven types tended to “bleed off” lift during the maneuver. Otherwise, once the pilot had mastered the plane, the S-92 was still, even in 1948, a very good fighter.

 

Nevertheless, the type’s major weak point was the engine. The M-04 needed to be maintained before and after every flight and it had an overall lifespan of only 60 flight hours. This was twice as long as the German Jumo 004 in war times, but this could rather be contributed to the fact that, in peacetime, the Czechoslovak pilots could gingerly work the throttles while taxiing and during the initial climb, whereas the Luftwaffe pilots needed to get the plane into the air as fast as possible. Another factor was higher quality material. Once the engine hit its lifespan limit, it could be factory-rebuilt, but Czechoslovaks found that the M-04 suffered from a type of metal fatigue called creep, and this was inherent to the Junkers design with no fix. After roundabout 300 hours of total flight time, it was not possible to refurbish the engine anymore and it had to be scrapped.

Despite being a WWII design, two countries showed interest in the post-war Avia S-92. Yugoslavia was the first potential customer, and in 1947, a Yugoslav air force pilot was trained in Czechoslovakia on the type. The Yugoslavs were interested in having a small number of jets to back up their mixed bag of propeller-driven fighters (P-47 Thunderbolts, Yak-9s, and Ikarus S-49s), but after reconsideration they decided to stick with piston-engine designs only for a few more years, with the goal of getting a new top-line American-made jet later. This became the F-84 Thunderjet, and this type eventually entered Yugoslav service in 1953.

 

Israel was the next prospect. In 1948-1949, there was some serious interest by Israel in either placing a production order with Avia or simply buying all of the few completed planes immediately for cash. Like Yugoslavia, the IDF regarded the Me 262 clones only as a stopgap solution, but the aircraft also played an important role in a deceptive political plan, which eventually worked: In 1950, Egyptian intelligence reported that a jet fighter had crashed at Ekron airbase inside Israel (the Israeli air force was still all-piston powered at the time) and that it most likely was an S-92. Sometime later, an Egyptian transport plane reported that it was being harassed by what appeared to be “a Me-262”.

 

Behind the scenes, the IDF had secured a secret deal to import not only the S-92 day fighter, but also the CS-92 trainer and a new, dedicated night/all-weather fighter variant called NS-92 (N for noční, meaning "night"). The latter was based on the CS-92 two-seater, similar to the German Me 262 B-1a/U1 interim night fighter, but it lacked dual controls in order to save weight. However, the NS-92 carried a more advanced radar system than the Me 262 B-1a/U1’s FuG 218 Neptun radar with a draggy eight-dipole antenna array, namely a revised FuG 240 Berlin system, which was copied by America after the end of the war as the AN/APS-3, which was, among others, used on board of the North American P-82F Twin Mustang.

 

The FuG 240 was an advanced design and used a more effective and less draggy dish antenna. It operated in the 3,250–3,330MHz (~10 cm) frequency band and its power output was 15 kW, making it effective against bomber-sized targets at distances of up to 9 kilometers, or down to 0.5 kilometer, which eliminated the need for a second short-range radar system. In order to mount the rotating dish antenna under a spacious radome on the Me 262’s airframe, the whole nose section had to be re-designed. A large fiberglass fairing was installed, which lengthened the fuselage by almost 3’ (80cm). Since the radar equipment now occupied the whole space above the front wheel bay, the internal guns had to be relocated into a low position, with two staggered cannon on each side, flanking the front wheel well (see below). Despite the new nose’s bulky shape, the new arrangement was aerodynamically far more effective than the Me 262 B-1a/U’s large dipole “antlers” antenna array, and the fighter almost regained its pre-radar speed. The only major drawback was a limited field of view for the pilot, especially directly in front of the aircraft.

 

The S-92/Me 262’s original 30mm MK 108s were not mounted anymore: while the MK 108 was basically a good weapon, its 30mm ammunition was unique to itself and this led after WWII to a supply problem. By 1949, the Czechoslovak arms industry was making a wide range of ammunitions, including shells for ex-German weapons from WWII, new Soviet guns being supplied by the USSR, and of course Czechoslovak guns. At some point, the country simply had to limit the number of different ammunition types in production, and the MK 108 shell seemed like an expendable item. In the consequence of this decision, Czech S-92s soon received four 20 mm Berezin B-20 cannons instead of the original MK 108s. While the B-20 was lighter weapon with a lower weight of fire, it offered the benefits of higher range, accuracy and rate of fire. Due to the B-20’s compact size and different placement, the ammunition supply for each cannon was raised to 200 rounds (versus the former 100 or 80 30 mm rounds). The modified machines received an "A" suffix. When many of the Czech S-92s were exported to Israeli, they were delivered without guns, since the IDF wanted to mount different weapons, anyway. In order to achieve a high communality between the various IDF combat aircraft types, the Israeli S-92s were all converted to British Hispano Mk V 20mm cannons, outwardly recognizable through longer barrels that protruded visibly from the aircraft nose. The ammunition supply of 200 RPG was retained.

 

Only eighteen (fourteen single-seaters and four two-seaters) S-92s were ever built. The main reason for the short production run was that they all were essentially being handmade, and Avia viewed the project as an annoying distraction from the company’s production license for the Soviet Yak-23 “Flora” jet fighter, which began building in Czechoslovakia in 1949. Avia was also eager to demonstrate readiness for a license to build MiG-15s (at the time, possibly the best fighter in the world) and they reasoned that hand-assembling old Luftwaffe designs would not impress the Soviets.

 

With only a small number of aircraft in existence, the total number of Czech Me 262 re-builds for Israel was low, too: six S-92s were delivered until 1951 (three of them former Czechoslovak air force machines, the fighters had been phased out by late 1950), plus three newly built NS-92s and two CS-92 trainers from air force surplus stock.

Nevertheless, the S-92s’ appearance in the Levant region created a lot of buzz, which was most probably also fueled by intentional British “leaks” to Egyptian intelligence in order to distract Israel’s nervous neighbors from the procurement of a more modern and reliable fighter from Great Britain, the Gloster Meteor. The IDF “officially” began receiving Meteor F.8 jet fighters in 1953, but, reportedly, had been flying at least one or two earlier-version Meteors since 1950, which might have (on purpose) been confused with S-92s, since both aircraft shared a similar layout. However, the Meteor's presence would have of course aggravated the Egyptians who were paying top-dollar for their British-made Vampire jet fighters in a bid to one-up the Israelis, and the S-92s and their uncertain number to outsiders were a welcome distraction. Therefore, it’s possible that the jet which crashed in 1950 was actually a Meteor and the British allowed the Egyptians to run with their S-92 theory. It is also possible that the crash never happened at all and the Me 262 story simply was a PR stunt!

 

Despite their weaknesses, the IDF S-92s frequently took part in military campaigns and fired in anger. Most of the time they took actively part in some of Israel’s reprisal operations (Hebrew: פעולות התגמול, Pe'ulot HaTagmul) in the early 1950s, carried out in response to frequent fedayeen attacks, in which armed Arab militants infiltrated Israel from Syria, Egypt and Jordan to carry out attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers. The last S-92 deployments took place in 1955, during a backlash operation against an Egyptian military camp near Gaza, which culminated in September 1955 when Egypt tightened its blockade of the Straits of Tiran, closed the air space over the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli aircraft and initiated fedayeen attacks against the Israeli population across the Lebanese and Jordanian borders.

At that time the IDF S-92s might have been good for some more years of duty, but the lack of replacement engines and spares put a natural end to the type, so that the small fleet was retired and soon scrapped.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 11.37 m (37 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 12.60 m (41 ft 6 in)

Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,795 kg (8,366 lb)

Loaded weight: 6,473 kg (14,272 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)

Aspect ratio: 7.32

 

Powerplant:

2× Avia M-04 (Junkers Jumo 004 B-1) turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 840 km/h (521 mph)

Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)

Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)

Rate of climb: 20 m/s (3,900 ft/min) at max weight of 7,130 kg

Thrust/weight: 0.28

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano Mk V cannon with 200 RPG

2× underfuselage hardpoints for a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or a 300l drop tank each

 

The kit and its assembly:

This build was spawned by a friend’s idea who thought about Israel not only having procured the Bf 109 derivative Avia (C)S-199 in the late Forties, but also the Czechoslovakian S-92 clone of the Me 262. While the idea was unlikely, I spun it further and even considered a night fighter version for the IDF (somewhat as a counterpart to an Egyptian Mosquito night fighter with radial engines, which I had built some years ago). This became the conceptual basis for this relatively simple build.

 

The kit is the venerable but IMHO still decent Heller Me 262 B-1a/U1 night fighter kit – a simple offering with raised surface details, but a nice cockpit interior (for its time). The only real weak points are IHMO the wheels, which lack detail, and the somewhat robust antennae.

 

The model was basically built OOB, the only change is the rhinoplasty because I did not find the idea of using the original/outdated FuG 218 with its draggy antler array after the war convincing. As an alternative and inspired by the real world FuG 240 installations that actually entered German night fighter service on board of some Ju 88Gs, I sculpted a completely new nose section from spare parts, primarily a leftover nose section from a Matchbox Meteor NF.11 night fighter and some putty.

The big Meteor radome necessitated the guns to be re-located, included hollow steel needles for the gun barrels. The “cheeks” of the Me 262’s triangular fuselage were a welcome, natural fairing for them – and there even was a real world Me 262 recce version that had a pair of guns re-located into a similar low position. The original 300 l drop tanks and their respective “viking ship” pylons under the forward fuselage were retained.

Since the new nose was fully devoid of surface details and the Heller kit came with raised details, I experimentally tried to create fake panel line with white glue, “painted” against a single stripe of masking tape, so that only one hard edge (facing forward) was created. The result of this improvisation did not turn out bad at all!

  

Painting and markings:

Again a rather conservative choice – and finally a good opportunity to apply the paint scheme that IDF Meteor night fighters wore in the Fifties: the brown/blue standard camouflage on the upper surfaces, but uniform dark grey undersides without roundels.

 

The authentic upper colors for this scheme are RAL 5008 (Blaugrau) and RAL 8000 (Grüngrau), for which I used a 1:1 mix of Humbrol 77 and 79 (77 alone comes close, but is simply too bluish/greenish) and Testors 1702 (Field Drab, FS 30118; this color comes very close to the RAL tone and is just a bit darker). About the dark grey for the underside I am uncertain, but IMHO RAL 7021 (Schwarzgrau, actually the German early WWII Panzergrau) is the most likely color, so I used Testors 2094.

 

The upper surfaces were, after a black ink wash, heavily sun-bleached through post-shading with considerably lighter mixes of the basic tones. Due to the kit’s raised panel lines and surface details, these were emphasized through light dry-brushing with light grey and silver. The black panels around the gun muzzles emphasize the contrast between the rather murky upper colors and the dark grey underside (created with decal sheet material).

 

The cockpit interior was painted with Revell 9 (Tar Black), as well as the landing gear wells. The landing gear struts were painted with Humbrol 240 (RLM 02), which was also used for a replacement starboard engine, since a very similar tone was the original overall color of the S-92s in Czech service. On the portside engine, the intake section was painted in aluminum, also simulating a replacement part.

In order to emphasize the radome’s material, fiber glass, the nose was painted in a sand brown tone and then heavily bleached/treated with streaky, dry-brushed lighter tones, simulation the semi-translucent material as well as wear/tear and general material deterioration under harsh desert sun. It stands out well from the dark aircraft, but a black radome did not appear plausible to me, IMHO a black nose would have reminded too much of the Meteor night fighter?

 

Markings were kept minimal, just IDF roundels on the flanks and on the wings’ upper surfaces, plus the tactical codes and small, red squadron badges (which is not authentic, though) on the fin. The only individual addition are two kill markings under the cockpit’s port side. The red walkway markings on the inner wings were created with generic decal strips.

Some more weathering was done around the gun ports, leading edges and the cockpit opening, and finally the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A relatively quick build, thanks to the simple kit basis and only some rhinoplasty. The Meteor radome might be a little too large for the aircraft and for what there is supposed to be hidden inside, but the overall result looks pretty plausible, though. It’s weird, but the radome as well as the as the Israeli markings do not look too fantastic?

Hailfire turret – a turret low on accuracy but compensated by its tremendous rate of fire from its three barrels.

Izzy doing what she does best .

Scope was 3-9X Hawke Airmax, better mag power may help!

Specialist firearms officers from North Yorkshire police including a rifleman duing an armed seige in Scarborough North Yorkshire.

 

These images are not mine.

 

If you see an image that belongs to you please message on flickrmail and i will happly remove it.

 

Source: Scarborough Evening News

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) market reporters refresh their Livestock Correlation skills at the Livestock Poultry and Grain Market News Southeast Employee Event at the UGA Agricultural Research Farm in Winterville, GA.

Livestock correlations are one way that USDA Market News ensures the accuracy and consistency in its reports. Correlations promote uniform grading skills and ensure that livestock are evaluated the same throughout the country.

USDA Photo by Preston Keres

Tombstone of Acton Burrows (September 18, 1853 - November 15, 1948) and his wife. He was a politician, a journalist, and the founder and publisher of The Canadian Railway and Marine World. Mount Pleasant Cemetery, Toronto, Canada. Spring evening, 2021.

 

The following article on Acton Burrows is from MacLean's Magazine. archive.macleans.ca/article/1929/6/15/burrows-the-indefat...

 

Burrows, the Indefatigable

 

He worked with “John A.”; he has been a journalist for fifty-five years and now at seventy-five is one of the most active publishers in Canada

 

June 15 1929 HOWARD ALLAN

 

YEARS ago, I interviewed the Swedish inventor, Johansson, whose mechanical gauges guarantee accurate measurement to within one-millionth of an inch. The story was not easy to write. The editor who had ordered it wanted color. Johansson wanted accuracy, to one-millionth of an inch.

 

This is the story of another man whose passion is accuracy—accuracy in the printed word. It is the story of Acton Burrows, and it is not an easy one to write, either. No story is easy when the subject flatly refuses to dramatize himself, even though, in addition to thirty-one years of publishing The Canadian Railway and Marine World, he has as a colorful background another quarter of a century of newspaper pioneering.

 

Now, while The Canadian Railway and Marine World may be regarded as a monthly gospel by officials of steam, electric, motor and marine transportation, it is probably unknown to the general magazine reader. To him it might appear coldly statistical. It has no sex appeal. It deals with facts—facts concerning all phases of transportation—developments, appointments, working conditions. It prints hundreds of names in each issue. It prints them correctly, too, with the proper initials fore and aft. And if you doubt that this is phenomenal, ask the society editor of any newspaper.

 

However, it is not so much The Canadian Railway and Marine World with which this article is concerned, as Acton Burrows himself. There is scarcely a city in Canada in which I have not heard him referred to by newspaper men as the most accurate journalist in the Dominion. There isn’t a city in Canada in which Acton Burrows has not scores of friends. But precious few people know the story of his life. Few know, for instance, of the close intimacy between him and Sir William C. Van Horne; or that he was Manitoba’s first Deputy Minister of Agriculture, that a railway station is named after him; or a score of other things concerning him. For it is difficult to get Acton Burrows to talk about himself. He would rather be working, or for recreation walking you off your feet.

 

STICKLER for accuracy that he is, one cannot doubt him when he states that he was born in 1853. But see his sturdy, stocky figure swinging down the street; note the glow in the cheek above the neatly trimmed imperial; observe the twinkle in the eye; hear him laugh at the latest joke and tell you another one. Seventy-five years of age ! Personally, I won’t wholly believe it until I see it in The Canadian Railway and Marine World, even though the Birth Registry at Bosbury, Herefordshire, England, has his birth entered on September 18, 1853.

 

It is not unlikely that Acton Burrows inherited a love of print, and of accuracy, too, from his father. Alfred J. Burrows, F.R.G.S..F.L.S.,

F. S. I., was master of Bosbury Grammar School.

 

Later he farmed, became a resident agent for landed estates, and wrote a number of books on estate management, forestry and agricultural subjects.

 

Young Acton was educated at Saham Toney College School in Norfolk, but in 1873, at the age of twenty, he decided that Canada probably would amount to something, and came.

 

His first job was circulation work for the Canadian Illustrated News and other publications of the Desbarats Company, Montreal, the head of which was the father of G. J. Desbarats, the present Deputy Minister of National Defense. After travelling for the Desbarats Company in Central Ontario, he went to Elora, Ontario, and there for a short time edited the Standard. In 1874, the Guelph Herald hired him as a subscription canvasser in the townships, and from farm to farm trudged young Burrows, adding to the circulation. A year of that and he became a reporter. Another year and he was editor. A third year and he was part proprietor.

 

In January, 1878, at the old Shaftesbury Hall, Toronto, there assembled the first general convention of the Conservative party in the Dominion. Burrows, there to cover the convention for the Herald, was elected one of the joint honorary secretaries, the other being William Johnston, editor of the Kingston Daily News. Today, Acton Burrows has in his possession the original, in Sir John A. Macdonald’s own handwriting, of the resolution drafted by a committee of which Sir John was chairman, which was endorsed unanimously by the convention, and which inaugurated the National Policy Movement and resulted in Sir John’s return to power at the general election later in that year.

 

In the autumn of 1878, Mr. Burrows sold his interest in the Guelph Herald to his partner, spent a few months on the House of Commons’ temporary staff at Ottawa, and in the spring of 1879 went to Winnipeg as night editor of the Daily Times. To get to Winnipeg at that time, it was necessary to travel via Chicago and St. Paul and over the Pembina branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway from the international boundary to St. Boniface, which had been built by the Dominion Government the year before. The line was unballasted, a fact which, as Burrows says, “was indelibly impressed not only on my memory but on my anatomy.” Then, there was no railway through any of the Canadian territory from Ontario to Manitoba.

 

It was in the summer of 1879 that there began to seep through to Winnipeg rumors of discontent among the Metis in the northwest territory. Lieutenant-Colonel W. Osborne Smith, C.M.G., then in command of the military district, with headquarters at Winnipeg, was sent in September, 1879, by the Dominion Government to organize volunteer companies on the North Saskatchewan River. Burrows was com-: missioned by the Toronto Mail and the Chicago Times to accompany him as special correspondent. In wagons they drove across the prairie to Duck Lake, Fort Carlton, Battleford and Prince Albert, being provided with relays of horses at the various Hudson’s Bay Company posts passed on the way. Nor did they sleep under a roof until Prince Albert was reached, camping at night in approved military style.

 

Colonel Smith was convinced that trouble was brewing among the Metis and so reported to the Government. In his newspaper despatches Burrows arrived at the same conclusion, a conclusion uncongenial to certain members of the then Dominion Government and some of its officials, with whom, to put it mildly, Smith and Burrows were not popular.

 

The trouble did not break out as quickly as Smith and Burrows thought it would, but smouldered until 1885, when it culminated in a second Metis rebellion.

 

BACK from the northwest came Burrows. Proceeding to Ottawa, he wrote and published “Northwestern Canada: A Guide to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories,” which was distributed widely by the Dominion Government in Great Britain and the United States for immigration purposes. But the call of the west was still ringing in his ears, and, in 1880, back to Winnipeg he went, to become Secretary of the Manitoba Provincial Agricultural and Industrial Society, until, two years later, it was succeeded by the Manitoba Board of Agriculture. As secretary of the latter he managed the annual provincial exhibitions held at Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie and St. Boniface, in various years.

 

Few men who have smelled printers’ ink can keep away from it. Burrows is no exception. In the spring of 1881 he took on, in addition to his other duties, the night editorship of the Manitoba Free Press. And then was born the germ which was to infect Burrows with railwayitis— an absolutely incurable affection.

 

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company had just been chartered. Railway construction had actively begun, and, in the columns of the Manitoba Free Press, Acton Burrows started his first railway department. Late in 1881, William C. Van Horne, the new General Manager of the C.P.R., stepped off a train in Winnipeg and walked into the inevitable reporter. It was Burrows. Today, one of his most treasured possessions is a photograph which bears the inscription in yellow crayon, “To my friend, Acton Burrows, my first acquaintance in Canada —W. C. Van Horne.” That meeting on a cold station platform forty-seven years ago was the beginning of a friendship which lasted until the death of Van Horne. It was a friendship of which Sir William made a permanent and public avowal when, during the construction of the main Canadian Pacific Railway transcontinental line across the prairies, he named a Saskatchewan station “Burrows.”

 

WHILE, as I say, Burrows was already infected with the railway virus, it was to remain latent for some years, for when, in June, 1882, the Manitoba Government, headed by the Hon. John Norquay, decided to establish a Department of Agriculture, Acton Burrows was offered the Deputy Ministership. He accepted. Being the first Deputy Minister of Agriculture Manitoba had ever had, he was unhampered by precedent. He had full scope for his energy and resourcefulness, and he used them. One of his first official acts was to take a carload of Manitoba’s agricultural products to the Ontario Provincial Exhibition at Kingston, where they were displayed in a specially erected building. Today, Mr. Burrows must smile when he thinks of the ejaculations of amazement on the part of the populace that such things could be done in far-off and mysterious Manitoba.

 

No sooner was this done than Burrows, after conferring with Dominion Government officials, set off on a tour of state capitals in the United States. By way of diversion, he produced Manitoba’s first crop statistics and thereafter issued them periodically. It would seem that the Provincial Legislature had its eye on its Deputy Minister of Agriculture, for his department was expanded to that of Agriculture, Statistics and Health. Burrows promptly organized a public health service, a system for the collection of vital statistics, and a veterinary sanitary service to cope with anthrax and glanders, which were then prevalent among livestock. It may or may not be significant that it was about this time that Mr. Gilbert conceived the character of Poo-Bah in “The Mikado.” I wonder if he had not heard about Acton Burrows, who, in addition to holding all the foregoing offices, was a member of the Manitoba Civil Service Board, Secretary of the Government’s Internal Economy Commission, Inspector of Hospitals, a Provincial Justice of the Peace, and, to cap all, deputy to the Lieutenant Governor for the signing of marriage licenses.

 

IN 1887, however, the little white newspaper corpuscles were busy again. With associates, Burrows bought the Winnipeg Daily Sun and subsequently the Winnipeg Daily Times, which were amalgamated under the name of The Manitoban, an evening paper, afterwards changed to a morning paper, The Morning Call. Two years later, it was sold to the Manitoba Free Press Company, then headed by W. F. Luxton, and Burrows devoted himself to the Nor’-West Farmer, in which he had previously bought a controlling interest and which he carried on until he sold it on leaving Winnipeg in 1895. In 1890, he founded The Western World, a monthly magazine devoted to the resources of the country west of Lake Superior, which was used by the Dominion and western provincial governments and by the Canadian Pacific Railway and other land-owning companies for promoting immigration.

 

And then it was that the railway virus cut loose. In 1895, Thomas G. Shaughnessy, later “Baron,” offered Acton Burrows the advertising privileges at the stations on all the Canadian Pacific Railway lines in Canada. Burrows took them, moved to Toronto, and carried on until 1898, when it was decided to cease displaying advertising on and in the stations, largely on account of the better buildings that were being erected which it was not desired to disfigure.

 

In March, 1898, after consulting with Sir William Van Horne, Burrows decided to start a periodical devoted to the Canadian transportation interests, which were then entirely dependent on United States publications. Sir William was somewhat doubtful whether it could be made a success. He promised to give it any assistance possible by supplying official information. Charles M. Hays, then General Manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, did the same, and The Railway and Shipping World made its first appearance in that same month of March, 1898. Its name was subsequently changed to The Railway and Marine World, and later to The Canadian Railway and Marine World. The paper carried itself from the start, and though the first few years were lean ones, it soon grew into a profitable property. In 1914, Sir William Van Horne wrote to the lone reporter who had met him on his arrival in Winnipeg, “I have just been looking over the last number of your Canadian Railway and Marine World, and I am more than ever struck by the extraordinary amount and the high character of the information it contains, which puts it on a par with, or even beyond, any railway journal I know. I remember the doubts I expressed to you at the time you started it and I feel bound to confess the extent of my mistake and to congratulate you warmly on your splendid success.”

 

FROM the start, Burrows’ aim was to secure accuracy. There was no limit to the amount of trouble to which he would go to obtain it. And still does. For thirty-one years, with the exception of two months when he was abroad, he has read over every line of “copy” before it has been put in the printer’s hands. Accuracy is the secret of the success of the publication. Every issue contains a standing invitation to readers to point out any errors they may discover, and any that may be pointed out, which are few and far between, are corrected in the next issue.

 

The publication is unique in that it has never employed correspondents. It depends entirely upon official sources for Information and carries on a large correspondence with transportation officials to obtain correct information. Newspaper reports are never relied on. Every press report for Acton Burrows must be confirmed by an official. The editor-in-chief is ably assisted by his son Aubrey, who is secretary-treasurer of Acton Burrows, Limited, and by two assistant editors. One, John Keir, who had extensive experience on the English and Irish press, has been with him for over twenty-five years. Keir writes the matter for several of the departments. The other, Edwin Winfield, took a transportation course at McGill University, then served in Canadian Pacific Railway shops, and then became a locomotive engineer. He deals with mechanical engineering and other technical matters.

 

Today, at the age of seventy-five, the amazing energy of Acton Burrows shows no sign of diminishing. In 1904, he attended the inaugural meeting of the Canadian Electric Railway Association, was unanimously elected Honorary Secretary-Treasurer from 1906 to 1920, and then declined re-election owing to the pressure of other duties. But they still have him as Honorary Vice-President of this Association, which includes every electric railway in Canada, with the exception of three or four small lines. And the term “honorary” isn’t as easy as it seems. He has been a member of the Canadian Press Association for over forty years. As a member of it, he has had his scraps, and he does love a scrap.

 

In 1914, for instance, a bill to give the Postmaster General the power to decide the rate of postage to be paid on newspapers and the fares to be paid for postmen on electric railway cars was passed through the Commons in a manner deemed by Acton Burrows and Lieutenant-Colonel J. B. Maclean, head of The MacLean Publishing Company, to be clandestine. Together they marched on Ottawa and fought it tooth and nail before the Senate Banking and Commerce Committee. The Committee carried it by one vote, but it was defeated when it came up for a second reading in the Senate. And in many other ways he has, on behalf of the publishing industry, gone into battle with a whoop. To add to the “Who’s Who” information, he was the first president of the Canadian National Newspapers and Periodicals Association, was re-elected in 1921, and at each annual meeting since, has been elected a director.

 

IN HIS earlier days, Burrows took an active part in politics, paying particular attention to the constituency of North Wellington in several election campaigns between 1873 and 1878. He was tb honorary chief organizer for the Conservative party for Manitoba at the general election of 1891, when the party’s candidates swept the province, but since returning to Ontario in 1895, he has not undertaken so much as a walk-on part on the political stage.

 

In 1877, when Guelph celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, Burrows had compiled and published “The Annals of the Town of Guelph,” a history of the place, from the cutting of the first tree in 1827; and since then he has written prolifically for his own and other publications.

 

That, in somewhat statistical form, is the career of Acton Burrows. It is a career that would have worn any ordinary man to a frazzle long before this. Not so Acton Burrows. “Who’s Who” may have him as a member of a dozen assorted clubs, but the club he favors most is his office. Outside of his work—and he puts in an eight or nine-hour day every weekday—his only hobby is walking. He walks from his office to his house, a distance of over two miles, and frequently walks back again. In summer, using the Caledon Mountain Club as a centre, he roams over the Caledon hills and the Credit valley, to the eternal despair of youths a third of his age. He can walk a ten-mile stretch over hilly country and then stun the inhabitants by prancing gaily into the club house with as much energy left as he had when he started. He has a tremendous number of friends, but he had a great admiration for Sir William Van Horne, who, he considers, was the first man in Canada to thoroughly realize the great potentialities of the country and who was filled with enthusiasm about it from the moment of his first arrival in Winnipeg. His closest living friend is that grand old man, the Primate of all Canada, Archbishop Matheson of Rupert’s Land, with whom he has been on very intimate terms for some fifty years, and for whom he has an intense admiration and affection.

 

Editor’s Note: The following is a transcription of the National Policy resolution, the original draft of which, as recorded by Sir John A. Macdonald, is reproduced on the first page of Mr. Allan’s article:

 

“The delegates from several Liberal Conservative associations of the Province of Ontario, assembled in convention, having completed the work of organization for which they were especially summoned, feel that they ought not to separate without placing on record their views on the subject which at this moment especially affects the interests of Canada.

 

“1st. They are satisfied that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national financial policy, which by a judicious re-adjustment of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural, mining and manufacturing interests of the Dominion.

 

“2nd. That no such re-adjustment will be satisfactory to the interests affected, or to the country, if adopted as a provisional means only—to meet a temporary exigency, or to supply a temporary deficit—nor unless it is made and carried out as a national policy.

 

“3rd. That until a reciprocity of trade is established with our neighbors, Canada should move in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs, so far as her varied interests may demand.

 

“4th. That it is the duty of the people of Canada to force upon the attention of the Government and Parliament of the Dominion, the necessity of carrying out these views, and to withhold or withdraw their confidence from any Government which may fail, from want of will, or want of ability 'to enforce them by legislative enactment.”

 

I can't guarantee historical accuracy but believe that 2207 was a Zurrieq route bus as depicted. The source image by David Little was a later view in the island-wide spray green livery. The bus is of an interesting 'semi-forward' control design, with a short bonnet and some engine intrusion into the body. The chassis may have been a normal-control lorry. The historical data that I have suggests that it was new in 1949 as Zurrieq bus 2207 and subsequently carried registration numbers A-2207, Y-1170 and Y-0469 (08-Nov-10).

 

All rights reserved. Not to be posted on Facebook or anywhere else without my prior written permission. Please follow the link below for additional information about my Flickr images:

www.flickr.com/photos/northernblue109/6046035749/in/set-7...

 

Yes, the Sony a7 IV has Eye-AF accuracy issues. It often tends to front focus at normal portrait distances and I've experienced a back focus for full body portraits as well.

The camera had a very good day. But still several shots have been out of focus.

❃ Visit This Blog Post

Dynamic range and color accuracy

Yes, the Sony a7 IV has Eye-AF accuracy issues. It often tends to front focus at normal portrait distances and I've experienced a back focus for full body portraits as well.

The camera had a very good day. But still several shots have been out of focus.

Yes, the Sony a7 IV has Eye-AF accuracy issues. It often tends to front focus at normal portrait distances and I've experienced a back focus for full body portraits as well.

The camera had a very good day. But still several shots have been out of focus.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.

The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.

 

The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.

 

KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.

 

The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.

From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.

 

Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.

 

The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).

The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.

Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.

 

Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.

 

The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.

The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.

The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.

 

The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.

 

A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.

Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.

Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.

 

Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.

 

A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.

 

The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.

To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.

 

The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.

 

However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.

 

More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.

 

Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)

Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward

6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only

Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,

2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed

Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Ground clearance: 17–57 cm

Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)

 

Armor:

Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)

 

Performance:

Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 24 hp/t

 

Engine:

1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)

1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,

connected with a direct-current generator

 

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

 

Armament:

1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,

plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.

 

The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?

 

From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.

 

The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.

Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.

 

Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.

As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.

  

Painting and markings:

AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.

This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.

 

Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.

 

On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.

Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.

 

The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.

  

An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.

Kent State University May 4 Memorial, Kent, Portage County, Ohio

 

THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY

 

BY JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY

 

On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

 

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4 and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970, at Kent State University.(1)

 

Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses.(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.

 

This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4 shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.

 

WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?

The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970, by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.

 

Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.

 

Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.

 

The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.

 

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?

Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1,000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.

 

Sunday, May 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protesters and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.

 

WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?

At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3,000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1,500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.

 

Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.

 

WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?

Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.

 

The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4 rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.

 

WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about 10 minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, 28 of the more than 70 Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13-second period.

 

HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?

Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

 

Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13-second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.

 

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

 

The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.

 

The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:

 

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

 

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.

 

We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.

 

A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

 

WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?

While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13-second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.

 

A man and young boy stare up at a May 4th Memorial.Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.

 

Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.

 

The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.

 

WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?

A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.

 

The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.

 

John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.

 

WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.

 

A student holds a candle at night to remember the victims of the May 4th shootings.First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.

 

Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1,900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.

 

Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.

 

Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.

 

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.

 

(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?

 

(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?

 

(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?

 

(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?

 

(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?

 

(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?

 

WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?

In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."

 

The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever Students gather in a circle, holding hands around a May 4th memorial to remember the victims of the Guard shootings.as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.

This is my representation of the Finnish Leopard 2A4 (of German origin) in the new Finnish camouflage. In order to make this interesting I had to take a little artistic license, making the front a little less even and messing around with greebles. There should also be 16 smoke launchers rather than eight, but they won't fit, so there. As a result, I am very happy with this, especially the look of the camo, but feel free to make criticisms and suggestions which could improve the vehicle!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Finnish_Leopard_2.jpg

Thats a pic of a real Leopard 2 in this camo, unfortunately I can't get that block pattern out of lime greem without some major difficulties. I could do it on LEGO Universe though... perhaps I will upload a picture or two.

Some of my Blacktron designs build in LDD and rendered in Pov ray!

 

The W.A.S.P. ( Walker Air SupPressor )

Mainly serves as air support can deploy into walker stance to support the land troops with more accuracy!

Consists of a flight/walk crew and weapons functions crew!

Elvis loves the good people of Iowa. Not only are they the nicest people on Earth, they're very accurate!

Nikon D40 + Nikkor 55-200mm

Striated Thornbill (Acanthiza lineata) along the Lava Tongue Boardwalk flitting and feeding among the thistles on the edge of a wetland, Tower Hill Wildlife Reserve near Warnambool, Victoria, Australia. Photographed on 11 March 2017.

 

www.inaturalist.org/observations/46454767

NASA release July 19, 2011

 

Click here to learn about the James Webb Space Telescope

 

The secondary mirror (shown here) was polished at the L3 Integrated Optical Systems - Tinsley in Richmond, Calif. to accuracies of less than one millionth of an inch. That accuracy is important for forming the sharpest images when the mirrors cool to -400°F (-240°C) in the cold of space. The Webb's secondary mirror was recently completed, following polishing and gold-coating.

 

"Secondary" may not sound as important as "primary" but when it comes to the next-generation James Webb Space Telescope a secondary mirror plays a critical role in ensuring the telescope gathers information from the cosmos. The Webb's secondary mirror was recently completed, following polishing and gold-coating.

 

There are four different types of mirrors that will fly on the James Webb Space Telescope, and all are made of a light metal called beryllium. It is very strong for its weight and holds its shape across a range of temperatures.

 

There are primary mirror segments (18 total that combined make the large primary mirror providing a collecting area of 25 meters squared/269.1 square feet), the secondary mirror, tertiary mirror and the fine steering mirror.

 

Unlike the primary mirror, which is molded into the shape of a hexagon, the secondary mirror is perfectly rounded. The mirror is also convex, so the reflective surface bulges toward a light source. It looks much like a curved mirror that you'll see on the wall near the exit of a parking garage that lets motorists see around a corner. This mirror is coated with a microscopic layer of gold to enable it to efficiently reflect infrared light (which is what the Webb telescope's cameras see). The quality of the secondary mirror surface is so good that the final convex surface at cold temperatures does not deviate from the design by more than a few millionths of a millimeter - or about one ten thousandth the diameter of a human hair.

 

"As the only convex mirror on the Webb telescope, the secondary mirror has always been recognized to be the hardest of all of the mirrors to polish and test, so we are delighted that its performance meets all specifications," said Lee Feinberg, Webb Optical Telescope manager at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Convex mirrors are particularly hard to test because light that strikes them diverges away from the mirror. Feinberg noted, "The Webb telescope convex secondary mirror is approximately the size of the Spitzer Space Telescope's primary mirror and is by far the largest convex cryogenic mirror ever built for a NASA program."

 

It was data from the Spitzer's mirrors that helped make the decision to use beryllium for the Webb telescope mirrors. Spitzer's mirrors were also made of beryllium.

 

So why is this mirror so critical? Because the secondary mirror captures light from the 18 primary mirror segments and relays those distant images of the cosmos to the telescope's science cameras. The secondary mirror is mounted on folding "arms" that position it in front of the 18 primary mirror segments. The secondary mirror will soon come to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. where it will be installed on the telescope structure. Then, as a complete unit, the telescope structure and mirrors will undergo acoustic and vibration testing.

 

The secondary mirror was developed at Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp. of Boulder, Colo. and the mirror recently completed polishing at the L3–IOS-Tinsley facility in Richmond, Calif. Northrop Grumman space Systems is the prime contractor on the Webb telescope program.

 

The James Webb Space Telescope is the world’s next-generation space observatory and successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. The most powerful space telescope ever built, Webb will observe the most distant objects in the universe, provide images of the very first galaxies ever formed and see unexplored planets around distant stars. The Webb Telescope is a joint project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency.

 

Credit:NASA/Ball Aerospace/Tinsley

 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission.

 

Follow us on Twitter

 

Like us on Facebook

 

Find us on Instagram

 

Blühendes Barock in Ludwigsburg.

Male doctor checking smiling pregnant woman's blood pressure in hospital

Feral or street dogs (Canis sp.) at Negombo, Sri Lanka. Photographed on 4 August 2007

 

www.inaturalist.org/observations/53813499

Female Red-winged Starling (Onychognathus morio) at Sani Valley Lodge, Sani Valley in the Drakensberg Ranges, South Africa. Photographed on 25 May 2018.

 

www.inaturalist.org/observations/51838484

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.

The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.

 

The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.

 

KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.

 

The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.

From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.

 

Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.

 

The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).

The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.

Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.

 

Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.

 

The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.

The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.

The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.

 

The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.

 

A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.

Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.

Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.

 

Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.

 

A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.

 

The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.

To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.

 

The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.

 

However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.

 

More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.

 

Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)

Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward

6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only

Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,

2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed

Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Ground clearance: 17–57 cm

Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)

 

Armor:

Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)

 

Performance:

Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 24 hp/t

 

Engine:

1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)

1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,

connected with a direct-current generator

 

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

 

Armament:

1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,

plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.

 

The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?

 

From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.

 

The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.

Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.

 

Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.

As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.

  

Painting and markings:

AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.

This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.

 

Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.

 

On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.

Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.

 

The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.

  

An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.

Precision, speed and accuracy are the hallmark of the astounding mechanism developed by the United Nations to record its multilingual proceedings. These behind-the-scene pictures show the life story of an official record, from the spoken word to the printed document.

 

The great majority of mankind, through the representatives of 58 Member nations, makes itself heard before the international forum. The words fly, but there is a machinery that gives them permanence and turns the representative's speech into a document of historic, as well as of immediate political and diplomatic value.

 

UN Photo

c. 1947

This photo was taken at the front of the County Courthouse in 1909.

Below are the names and biographies of the Civil War Veterans listed above. There is additional information at the bottom of the page on some individuals and the Civil War units in which they served. The information below was obtained from family members and research by myself. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information below, but present it for general purposes. – Brian K. Chatham, 2017.

 

1. P. R. Crump. Pleasant Riggs Crump. Pleasant Crump was born in 1847 and died in 1951, age 104. Pleasant Crump was born in Crawford’s Cove, in St. Claire County, Alabama. He is buried in Hall Cemetery, Lincoln, Alabama. He enlisted as a Private in Company A, 10th Alabama Infantry Regiment in November 1864. He fought with the 10th Alabama at the Battle of Hatchers Run, participated in the siege of Petersburg, and the surrender at Appomattox Court House.

 

2. UKN.

 

3. W.A. Morris. Full name: William Alexander Morris. Present Post Office: Alpine, Ala. Was born on July 15, 1832 in the county of Taliaferro in the state of Georgia; First entered the service as Private on May 1862 at Talladega, Alabama in the Co F, 51st Alabama Partisan Rangers (mounted) and continued until discharged April 1865, Greensboro, North Carolina.

 

4. Zeke Vincent.

 

5. Buck Roberson. Buck Roberson. Is this him?: Full Name: Roberson, William. Present Address Post Office: Talladega, Ala. He was born on April 10, 1827, at Montevalo, in the county of Shelby, in the state of Alabama. He first entered the service as Private on November 1862, at Shelbyville, Tennessee, in Company F, 25th Alabama, and continued until discharged in May 1865, Greensboro, North Carolina.

 

6. Thomas S. Plowman. With the outbreak of the Civil War, he joined the Confederate Army at age 20 and served as a Private in Company F, 51st Alabama Cavalry. After the war, he was active in agricultural and mercantile pursuits in Talladega, Alabama. He was Mayor of Talladega, (1872-78) and president of the First National Bank of Talladega. In 1897, he presented credentials as a Democratic member-elect to the Fifty-fifth Congress, serving until 1898. After his term, he was on the Talladega County Jury Commission (1910-11), a member of the Alabama State Senate in 1912 and the first president of the Bankhead Highway.

 

7. George Parsons. George Wake Parsons (also spelled Parson, in some information). Present Post Office: Talladega, Alabama. He was born on April 26th, 1843 at Nicholsville, in the county of Jessamine, in the state of Kentucky. Parsons first entered the service as Private on June 1861, at Talladega, Alabama, in Company A, 8th Cavalry (CSA) and continued until paroled April 23rd, 1865, Talladega Alabama. The 8th Cavalry marched with the army into Kentucky, and was engaged in a series of bloody encounters, extending up to and subsequent to the battle of Murfreesboro. It was in Wheeler's dash on Rosecrans' rear during that battle, and was badly cut in two or three cavalry fights shortly after. The regiment lost very severely at Shelbyville, and was engaged at Chickamauga. Near Dalton, May 1864, the regiment had a protracted fight, with heavy loss. During the Dalton-Atlanta campaign the regiment fought as infantry nearly the whole time. It was engaged at Jonesboro, and in the captured of Stoneman. It was with Wheeler in his last grand raid into Tennessee, fighting often, then moved into Virginia, and fought Burbridge at Saltville. The 8th Cavalry then pursued Sherman into the Carolinas. It was in constant contact with him untill it surrendered at Greenesboro, NC, less than 100 strong. Parsons applied for admission to the Mountain Creek Soldiers Home in 1917. He is listed on the 1920 Chilton County Census as a resident of the Mountain Creek Soldiers Home. He died in 1921 and is buried at Oak Hill Cemetery, Talladega, Alabama.

 

8. J. Knox Polk Jones. James Knox Polk Jones. JONES, JAMES KNOX Present Post Office: Talladega, Ala Was born on April 17th, 1845, in the county of Talladega, in the state of Alabama; First entered the service as Private on March 1862, at Talladega, Alabama in the Co F, 30th Alabama and continued until discharged April 1865, Saulsbury, North Carolina.

 

9. UKN.

 

10. UKN.

 

11. Junius Brutus Woodward. J.B. Woodward. Born December 7, 1845, in South Carolina, and died January 25, 1921, in Talladega, Alabama. His were Joseph A. and Minerva (Rice) Woodward. Joseph A. Woodward moved the family to Talladega County in 1860. Joseph A. Woodward was a lawyer by profession. J.B. Woodward received an education in the public schools, but was cut short by the Civil War. At age 16, J.B. enlisted in the 1st Company, Washington Artillery of New Orleans and served until the surrender of General Lee. He served with his battalion in all of its battles, except Drewry’s Bluff. After the war he returned to Talladega and entered the mercantile business, rising successfully. He married in 1877, to Sarah Rogers (Wood) Woodward, producing two children, a son named Rice, and daughter named Pinekney C. His family are members of the Presbyterian Church. Pvt. 1st Battalion, Washington Artillery, Confederate States Army.

 

12. James Albert Williams.

 

13. Edmond Ogletree. Edmond Hooker Ogletree, 4th Corporal, Company F, 30th Regiment, Alabama Infantry. Ogletree was born December 18, 1829 and died on August 10, 1921. He is buried at Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, Talladega, Alabama. He married Clemenza J. (Elliott) Ogletree (b.1830-d.1909).

 

14. James Brewster Stapp. James B. Stapp was born on September 15, 1847 and died on January 14, 1920 at the age of seventy-three years. He entered service in the Civil War in 1863, at the age of 16, and served with Company C, 62th Regiment, Alabama Reserves. James Stapp was a Mason and County Commissioner. He is buried at Hephzibah Cemetery, Talladega County, near Renfroe.

 

15. UKN.

 

16. J.B. Terry. Josiah Boon Terry, was born on July 3, 1845 in the county of Talladega in the state of Alabama; First entered the service as Private on March 1863, at Talladega, Alabama in the Company F, 51st Alabama Cavalry (Partisan Rangers) and continued until paroled, May 1865. J.B. Terry died on June 18, 1926, in Talladega, Alabama and is buried at Oak Hill Cemetery. The 51st Alabama Cavalry was a partisan Rangers cavalry unit. Partisan rangers were irregular (not regular Army) forces, who operated outside normal army organization, rules, regulations, etc. The 51st worked with the Army of Tennessee, primarily responsible for the security of its flanks.

 

17. George A. Joiner. George Alburtus Joiner was born in Talladega, October 23, 1843, and is a son of James H. and Rachel (Williamson) Joiner. He died in 1918. At the age of 18 years he entered the Confederate Naval Academy, near Richmond Va., and was graduated in 1864. He was for a short time in the service as an officer on the Confederate ironclad, "CSS Huntsville," and was wounded at the Battle of Fort Blakely, Mobile Bay. He held the rank of past midshipman, and was recommended for promotion a short time before the final surrender. After Fort Blakely was stormed and taken, he was transferred to the side-wheel casemate ironclad, “CSS Nashville”, and surrendered with that ship. Soon after the war, he became associated with his father in the publication of a newspaper, and remained in that business until 1873, since which time he became in mercantile pursuits.

 

18. UKN.

 

19. Augustus “Gus” G. Burton. Gus Burton was born in 1837. He enlisted as a private in Company E, 53rd Alabama Partisan Rangers. He filed for his pension in Talladega County. The 53rd Regiment Alabama Cavalry, also known as the 53rd Alabama Partisan Rangers, was instrumental in the raid to capture a train load of cattle destined for General Sherman during the Atlanta Campaign. The unit continued a guerrilla action as General Sherman marched to the sea in his scorched-earth campaign to Savannah. The 53rd served in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina.

 

20. UKN.

21. UKN.

22. UKN.

 

23. James Matson Giddens. James Madison Giddens was born in 1837, in Tennessee and died in 1924, Birmingham, Alabama. He is buried with many other members of the Giddens family in Bethel Methodist Church Cemetery, Talladega, Alabama. He enlisted as a Private in Company K, 10th Alabama Infantry Regiment (CSA) in May 1861. The 10th Alabama fought under the Army of Northern Virginia until it surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse. The 10th Alabama suffered 300 killed in action and another 180 who died of disease.

 

24. UKN.

 

25. Henry Clay Hannah. Henry Clay Hannah. Born on October 12, 1844 in Alabama and died May 1924, in Vincent, Shelby County, Alabama. Henry married Missouri Catherine Gambrell in Talladega County in 1871. He lived in Shelby County from 1880 until his death. He is buried in the Macedonia Church Cemetery in Vincent, Alabama. He has a military headstone in this cemetery with no dates on his headstone. He served in the Civil War with Company A (The Walker Reynolds Guards), 29th Alabama Infantry where he was recorded as having been wounded. The 29th Infantry saw heavy fighting during the War. When the 29th Alabama finally surrendered on April 26, 1865, less than 90 men were present.

 

26. UKN.

 

27. Knox Albright. Isaac Knox Albright, born March 19, 1841, and died January 17, 1917. He was a member of Company G, 42nd Alabama Infantry. He enlisted June 1864 as a private. Albright is buried at Oak Hill Cemetery, Talladega, Alabama.

 

28. UKN.

 

29. J.B. McMillan. James Benjamin McMillan. Private, 1st Battery, Washington Artillery, Confederate States Army. Enlisted at Talladega July 29, 1863, age 17. Present at Drewry's Bluff and Petersburg. One furlough in April 1864 and quite a bit of sick time. No card regarding the surrender. Last present January 1, 1865. Rank of Private. Buried at Oak Hill Cemetery.

 

30. UKN.

 

31. Lige Horn. Could this be Elijah L. Horn? Elijah L. Horn served as a sergeant in Company F, 30th Alabama Infantry. This unit was organized in Talladega.

 

32. W.A. London. William A. London. He died after 1920. He enlisted Oct-1864 Leathers Ford, GA as a private in Edmondson’s Georgia Battalion of Cavalry. He filed for his pension in Talladega County

 

33. UKN.

 

34. Dr. J. W. Heacock. Dr John William "Jack" Heacock, Birth: Dec. 21, 1837, Talladega County, Alabama, USA, Death: Apr. 27, 1920, Talladega County, Alabama, USA. "Jack" is the son of Dr. Joseph Davis Heacock and Rachel Maurice Garner. During the Civil War, he served in the Confederate Army in Co. E, 10th AL Infantry Regiment. He enlisted on 14 Jan 1861, as a private, and by 17 Sep 1861 he had been elected a 1st Sergeant. On 24 Mar 1863 he became a 1st Lt. (According to the inscription on his grave marker, he rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), which I think is either an error or honorary.) After the war he became a physician and married Julia Arabelle "Belle” Riser, in Talladega Co, AL, and they had Dr. Joseph Davis Heacock & Alda B. (F). After the death of his first wife, Dr. Heacock married his wife’s sister, Louise Eleanor "Lue" Riser, 15 years his junior, on November 16, 1875, in Talladega Co, AL, They had many children: Georgia M., John William, Edgar B., Rachel Paralee, Minnie, Walter Judson, Irene, Kathlene, Nannie May, Lou Eleanor, and Mildred.

 

35. UKN.

36. UKN.

 

37. J.T. Hiett. James Thomas Hiett, was born in 1845 and died in 1936. During the Civil War, he enlisted as a private in Company D, 62nd Alabama Infantry Regiment (Reserves). During the Civil War, confederate reserve units were usually composed of very young (16-18y/o) and very old men. The reserve units were primarily “home defense” and did not deploy outside of the State. But, many saw action – the 62nd saw heavy action and heavy casualties. The unit primarily was used at Mobile, Alabama, in the defense of Spanish Fort and Fort Gaines. James Hiett is buried at Bethel Methodist Church Cemetery, Talladega, Alabama.

 

38. UKN.

 

Workshop : Kim Akrigg & Ryan Doco Connors

Model : Karie Leigh Holst

Makeup/Hair: Dina Day & Shawnna Downing

Styling: Vincent Lee

 

www.elainegebert.ca/blog

 

Once again, the fortune cookie knows all.

Measurement taken after post-cure. Original CAD dimensions of this part: 19.000 mm. In general, accuracy better than 0.005 mm (0.0002") can be expected if the process is carried out right.

 

The Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope is a radio telescope in the Ahr Hills (part of the Eifel) near Bad Münstereifel, Germany. It is the second largest fully steerable radio telescope on Earth.

 

The Effelsberg radio telescope is operated by the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, the radio astronomy institute of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. It was constructed from 1968 to 1971 and inaugurated on 1 August 1972. A major technical difficulty in building a radio telescope of 100 m diameter was how to deal with the deformation of the mirror due to gravity when it is rotated to point in a different direction. The mirror must have a precise parabolic shape to focus the radio waves, but a conventionally-designed dish of this size would "sag" slightly when rotated so the mirror loses its parabolic shape. The Effelsberg telescope uses a novel computer-designed mirror support structure which deforms in such a way that the deformed mirror will always take a parabolic shape. The focus will move during such deformation, and the feed antenna suspended in front of the mirror is moved slightly by the computer control system as the telescope is rotated to keep it at the focus. Tests after completion of the telescope showed that the intended accuracy of the mirror surface of 1 mm had not only been met, but exceeded significantly.

 

About 45% of the observing time is available to external astronomers.

 

Source: wikipedia.org

 

With this post I want to point out a new website that contains an important collection of interviews and essays from Michael Perryman. These provide a unique inside view of the development of space astrometry from before 1980 to the present spectacular success of ESA's Gaia spacecraft currently operating from the second Lagrangian Point orbit one and a half million kilometres from Earth.

 

His website also hosts an updated second edition of his Exoplanet Handbook published by Cambridge University Press in 2018 along with a number of fascinating essays on mathematics.

 

I provide a brief introduction to the story in the text below this URL for Michael's website:

 

www.michaelperryman.co.uk

 

***

 

Note: Added in May 2022.

 

On 24 May 2022 it was announced that Lennart Lindegren and Michael Perryman had jointly been awarded the 2022 Shaw Prize for Astronomy: "for their lifetime contributions to space astrometry, and in particular for their role in the conception and design of the European Space Agency’s Hipparcos and Gaia missions."

 

www.shawprize.org/news/announcement-press-conference-2022...

 

***

 

The story, an introduction

Michael Perryman worked for the European Space Agency (ESA) and was appointed project scientist for the Hipparcos space astrometry satellite at the early age of 26. Its task was to measure unprecedentedly precise positions of over 100,000 stars out to distances of several hundred light years using methods that were around 200 times more accurate than previous catalogues.

 

See:

www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos

and

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparcos

 

The satellite was launched in August 1989 into a highly eccentric Earth orbit, ready for transfer to its intended Geostationary position. However, the rocket motor designed to achieve this orbit change failed to ignite, leaving the satellite to plunge regularly into the damaging Van Allen radiation belts. When all attempts to ignite the rocket had failed, Michael and the ESA operations engineers worked tirelessly to understand how to keep the satellite operating for as long as possible in its current orbit and how to redesign the entire programme of measurements to recover as much of the science programme as was possible.

 

With this heroic effort, the satellite lasted somewhat longer than its design goal of three years and the entire science programme was completed to levels of accuracy greater than expectations. The final Hipparcos Catalogue was published in 1997 along with a larger list of 2.5 million stars with somewhat reduced acciracy.

 

This catalogue represented a huge leap in our knowledge of the three dimensional positions of stars in our Galactic neighbourhood and it carried many profound implications for physics well beyond the field of stellar astrometry. Given the success of the mapping methodology, it was natural to think of a successor that would both greatly increase the precision of measurement and extend its reach throughout and beyond our Milky Way galaxy.

 

In collaboration with the prominent astrometrist Lennart Lindegren from Lund University, Michael pursued this idea which led to a proposal for funding being made to ESA in 1993. This was to construct a larger, more complex spacecraft that would become known as GAIA (Global Astrometric Interferometer for Astrophysics). This was eventually selected as a 'Cornerstone' of the agency's Horizon 2000 Plus long-term scientific plan in October 2000. Although the final design of the spacecraft was not actually an interferometer, the name Gaia was kept for project continuity. Michael subsequently led the project through its detailed design, technology development, and data analysis preparation through to his retirement from ESA in 2009.

 

See:

sci.esa.int/web/gaia

and

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)

 

Gaia was successfully launched from Kourou in French Guiana in 2013 and is currently scanning the sky from a position some 1.5 million kilometres from Earth to produce a revolutionary 3D star map containing positions of around 2 billion stars, varying fractions of which will include other data such as colours, spectra, radial velocities etc.

 

Data collection is expected to continue at least until the end of 2023.

 

The story of the Hipparcos Mission is told by Michael in his book: "The Making of History's Greatest Star Map", Michael Perryman, Springer-Verlag, 2010.

 

link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-11602-5

 

Michael is currently producing a number of audio interviews with the scientists and engineers responsible for the realisation of both Hipparcos and Gaia. These provide a priceless documentary record of these two very major scientific space missions. He is also recording interviews with scientists who wrote some of the thousands of scientific papers already published based on the Gaia results.

 

Along with other material, including an updated version of the 2nd edition of the Exoplanet Handbook and a fascinating set of around 50 short (2 page) essays on relevant science topics, this material is now available on Michael's website:

 

www.michaelperryman.co.uk

 

The next Gaia public data release by ESA (Gaia Data Release 3) expected in June 2022, will take place within the 200th anniversary year of the death of William Herschel, marking a period that spans a remarkable developments in the history of mapping the sky.

  

ホウジャク

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.

The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.

 

The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.

 

KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.

 

The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.

From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.

 

Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.

 

The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).

The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.

Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.

 

Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.

 

The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.

The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.

The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.

 

The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.

 

A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.

Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.

Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.

 

Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.

 

A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.

 

The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.

To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.

 

The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.

 

However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.

 

More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.

 

Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)

Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward

6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only

Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,

2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed

Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Ground clearance: 17–57 cm

Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)

 

Armor:

Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)

 

Performance:

Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 24 hp/t

 

Engine:

1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)

1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,

connected with a direct-current generator

 

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

 

Armament:

1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,

plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.

 

The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?

 

From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.

 

The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.

Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.

 

Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.

As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.

  

Painting and markings:

AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.

This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.

 

Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.

 

On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.

Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.

 

The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.

  

An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.

Kent State May 4 Shooting Site, Kent State University, Kent, Portage County, Ohio

 

THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY

 

BY JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY

 

On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

 

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4 and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970, at Kent State University.(1)

 

Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses.(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.

 

This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4 shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.

 

WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?

The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970, by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.

 

Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.

 

Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.

 

The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.

 

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?

Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1,000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.

 

Sunday, May 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protesters and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.

 

WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?

At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3,000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1,500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.

 

Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.

 

WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?

Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.

 

The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4 rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.

 

WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about 10 minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, 28 of the more than 70 Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13-second period.

 

HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?

Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

 

Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13-second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.

 

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

 

The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.

 

The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:

 

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

 

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.

 

We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.

 

A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

 

WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?

While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13-second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.

 

A man and young boy stare up at a May 4th Memorial.Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.

 

Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.

 

The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.

 

WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?

A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.

 

The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.

 

John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.

 

WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.

 

A student holds a candle at night to remember the victims of the May 4th shootings.First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.

 

Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1,900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.

 

Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.

 

Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.

 

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.

 

(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?

 

(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?

 

(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?

 

(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?

 

(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?

 

(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?

 

WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?

In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."

 

The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever Students gather in a circle, holding hands around a May 4th memorial to remember the victims of the Guard shootings.as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.

Kent State May 4 Shooting Site, Kent State University, Kent, Portage County, Ohio

 

THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY

 

BY JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY

 

On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

 

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4 and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970, at Kent State University.(1)

 

Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses.(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.

 

This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4 shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.

 

WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?

The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970, by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.

 

Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.

 

Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.

 

The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.

 

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?

Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1,000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.

 

Sunday, May 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protesters and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.

 

WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?

At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3,000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1,500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.

 

Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.

 

WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?

Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.

 

The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4 rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.

 

WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about 10 minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, 28 of the more than 70 Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13-second period.

 

HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?

Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

 

Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13-second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.

 

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

 

The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.

 

The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:

 

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

 

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.

 

We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.

 

A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

 

WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?

While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13-second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.

 

A man and young boy stare up at a May 4th Memorial.Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.

 

Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.

 

The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.

 

WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?

A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.

 

The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.

 

John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.

 

WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.

 

A student holds a candle at night to remember the victims of the May 4th shootings.First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.

 

Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1,900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.

 

Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.

 

Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.

 

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.

 

(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?

 

(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?

 

(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?

 

(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?

 

(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?

 

(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?

 

WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?

In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."

 

The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever Students gather in a circle, holding hands around a May 4th memorial to remember the victims of the Guard shootings.as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.

The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.

 

The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.

 

KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.

 

The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.

From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.

 

Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.

 

The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).

The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.

Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.

 

Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.

 

The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.

The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.

The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.

 

The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.

 

A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.

Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.

Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.

 

Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.

 

A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.

 

The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.

To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.

 

The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.

 

However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.

 

More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.

 

Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)

Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward

6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only

Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)

Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,

2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed

Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Ground clearance: 17–57 cm

Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)

 

Armor:

Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)

 

Performance:

Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 24 hp/t

 

Engine:

1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)

1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,

connected with a direct-current generator

 

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

 

Armament:

1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,

plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.

 

The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?

 

From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.

 

The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.

Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.

 

Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.

As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.

  

Painting and markings:

AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.

This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.

 

Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.

 

On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.

Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.

 

The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.

  

An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.

Accuracy is mandatory.