View allAll Photos Tagged present
My cat Andy received a wonderful Christmas present. He hasn't played much in recent years, but he went crazy over this item.
This one was kind of a pain to work with because changing the neck position or the pose much would make the whole thing loose, causing wardrobe malfunctions. This shot was kind of a reaction to that, but I like the lines.
today we got a surprise package for Tiffany filled with so many beautiful things. She has never looked cute than in those 2 dresses. One says "Biker Babe" and the other "Heartbreaker" and hey fit like they were made just for her. Cant thank you enough Monica
Stoke is made of three small settlements, and in order to find the church, we visited Lower, Middle and Upper Stokes.
Situated among 20th century housing, on a sweep in the main road. It is a fine spot, and we arrived with the sun away to the west behind the church from the road, making photography difficult.
Through the attractive Lych Gate, one is presented with another sturdy church, with a wide, squat tower. Sadly for me, it was locked and no details of how to contact for access, so made do with some exterior shots, and somewhere else to go come the Heritage Weekend at some point.
----------------------------------------------
It is difficult to date accurately the first church building in Stoke, but we know from Edwards Hasteds ‘History of Kent’ published in 1798 the early history of the church: Stoke itself was given to the See of Rochester by Eadberht, King of Kent, sometime between 664 and 673 AD “for the good of his soul and for the remission of his sins.” This makes it one of the first donations of land to the church. It is likely that there were some settlements here in Roman times and that there were some salt workings on the marshes even in those days. In Saxon times Stoke was an important place, as we know by its name. In those days it was called Andschohesham, a “ham on the stockaded land.” In early Saxon days a place protected by a stockade would attract people needing a refuge for their cattle. It would become more important than a settlement ending with a “ton” or “ham.” Later the name was shortened to Estoches and it is recorded under this name in the Domesday Book of 1086. The entry for Stoches or Stoke states that there was a church with four servants and four acres of meadows. This and all the other land and villeins (a feudal tenant entirely subject to a lord or manor to whom he paid dues and services in return for land) were held by the Bishop of Rochester, (Picture above left Rena Pitsilli-Graham).
The earliest parts of the church, possibly the Nave, Chancel and aisles, date from the late 12th century. A report by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust (CAT) (Linklater 2010) gives a broad outline of the history of the building and indicates that the Naves arcades are also of this date with the north arcade perhaps being slightly later but “only by 20 years or so” Stoke church was dedicated only to St. Peter until at least 1524, with St Paul added some time after that. The Edward Hasted history still refers to it as St Peter only in 1789. The position of the church is due to the people of the village settling on the high ground above the Saltings. The village developed as scattered housing on the margins of the firm ground above the reaches of the highest tides, although the lower land was probably farmed as it would be very fertile. The oldest part of the present church dates from about 1175. However from earlier historical records of the building it is difficult to establish whether the South or the north aisle is thought to be the earliest. Historians have written that “the pillars of the south arcade are Norman, Octagonal and carry the massive quality so usual in Norman Work.” However, you will see the octagonal pillars are actually on the north side of the church and the south arcade has rounder squatter pillars, with arches of similar style. Another historian claims that it is this aisle which is the oldest, with Norman transition pillars, capitals and arches. It would certainly appear to be uncertain.
The Font at the rear of the south aisle is a circular tub shape, which has been claimed to be Norman, although others believe it to be Saxon; it is dated as 13th century by the listing description. Its simple shape and workmanship certainly incline to an earlier Saxon time, but at this stage it is unlikely to be established one way or the other.
he next addition was the other arcade and aisle, presumably on the north side. The original lancet window is still here, but the present glass is of a much more recent date. The chancel dates from the same date as the lancet window. Within the chancel is an ornamental stone coffin lid, near to the altar on the north side, while on the South side is the outline of the priest’s door, which would have led to a separate chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. On the same wall is a piscine niche with a foliated canopy.
In the South Aisle is a piscine with a fox and a lion head, the lion putting it’s tongue out . This is fourteenth century work, which supports the view that the south aisle was once the chantry for Malmaynes Hall, granted to the manor of Malmaynes Hall around 1380, and below the aisle was the family vault.
Many centuries later when the roof was being repaired the vault become flooded, and this is popularly supposed to have caused the pillar closest to the east window to have tilted out of true.
The fifteenth century was a busy time for the fabric of the church, with two windows in the north aisle being added, and the window above the font. The glass in these has been replaced at later dates. Most of the roof timbers date from this time. , as do the north and south door. The present door in the south wall is a modern addition, donated by the Royal Engineers, based in the Medway towns.
The Canterbury Archaeological Trust (CAT) (Linklater 2010) report states that the Tower may be as early as the 14th century, (there were bequests for the building work from 1479 onwards) and it may have been repaired or extended in the early part of the 16th century. The tower itself stands, but the steeple was never built, despite many donations from the people of Stoke and benefactors from further afield. The reason has never been fully explained. The tower seems to have been built or rebuilt from 1470 to 1550, and it may be that all the monies donated were used to build the tower. Some believe that the Reformation intervened and that the work was abandoned. Others believe that the siting of a steeple so close to the estuary would have been too dangerous, acting as a beacon to invaders. Whatever the reason, no steeple has ever been added to the tower, which at least gives us the opportunity to climb the 53 steps to enjoy the panoramic views from the top. Within the tower is the belfry, with three bells. These have were restored in 1980’s along with parts of the bell frame at a cost of many thousands of pounds.
The vault discovered in the vault centre of the South Aisle in 2009 has been shown to be an unusual double chamber, at 4.2 metres long, occupying the centre of the Aisle. This is thought to date from the 17-18th century. Substantial burials have been found to the East of the Aisle externally.
Over the last four centuries little new work has been added to the church, but various repairs have been carried out, including a major restoration programme in 1898 of the roofs and floors as described in a newspaper article of the time (see left). The architect was FC Lees of Victoria Street, Westminster. It appears that a North Porch was in existence and was either rebuilt or remodelled after 1898 according to the article. (See the restoration pages for details of works starting in 2014)
Over the years the glass in the windows has been replaced and there appears little or no documentation about the original or subsequent glass. In the lancet window in the north aisle there is a beautiful glass showing three pomegranates in tones of blue, turquoise and gold, (See picture right, Rena Pitsilli-Graham)
Nearby is a window designed and donated by Mrs Marjorie Crofts, depicting St. Francis of Assissi with rushes, poppies, and white dove and a kingfisher. This was made by Maile Studios of Canterbury and presented in 1995.
The main east window in the chancel is dedicated to the Goord family and dates from 1938. It was made by Celtic Studios of Swansea, a small studio founded in 1933 by Howard Martin and his cousin Hubert Thomas. They designed and made stained glass windows for houses, a cinema, a pub, chapels and churches and there is a large amount of their work in Toronto, Canada. The window here cost £409.10s and shows St. Peter and St. Paul with Christ in the centre panel. St Peter is holding two keys and St Pauls is holding a sword. No other examples of stained glass exist in the church.
Outside the church is a pretty lych gate in the boundary wall surrounding the churchyard. The wooden gates were given by the Bett family in 1995 in memory of Phillip Bett, a long standing and devoted church warden and servant of the church, (see pictures left, J Plumb).
On the outside wall by the south door is a holy water stoup, dating back some centuries. The church walls are constructed mostly of random rubble Kentish Ragstone. The church was listed Grade 1 in 1966. National Heritage defines this as 'of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important; only 2.5% of listed buildings are Grade I.'
www.stpeterstpaulupperstoke.com/history
-------------------------------------------------
THE last parish undescribed in this hundred, lies the next southward from that of Alhallows. A small part of it is within the hundred of Shamel. This place, as appears by the Textus Roffensis, was called Andscohesham in the time of the Saxons. In Domesday it is called Estoches and Stoches; and in later deeds by its present name of Stoke.
EADBERHT, king of Kent, gave part of his land for the good of his soul, and the remission of his sins, to the bishopric of St. Andrew, in Rochester, and Ealdulf, bishop of it, in the district called Hohg, at a place there called Andscohesham, containing, by estimation, ten ploughlands, together with all things belonging to it, in fields, woods, meadows, fisheries, saltpans, &c. according to the known and established bounds of it; which gift was confirmed by archbishop Nothelm and king Æthelberht, in the metropolitical city, in 738. This estate was afterwards wrested from the church of Rochester during the troublesome times of the Danish wars, and was afterwards purchased by earl Godwin of two men, who held it of the bishop of Rochester, and sold it without the bishop's knowledge. The earl was succeeded in it by his eldest son, earl Harold, afterwards king of England, after whose death, William the Conqueror attaining the crown, seised on all the late king's estates, and gave this manor, together with other land at Stoke, among other premises, to Odo, bishop of Baieux, his half brother. But Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, recovered the manor of Stoke from him, in the solemn assembly held at Pinenden-heath, in 1076, and afterwards restored it, with its church, to Gundulph, bishop of Rochester, and the church of St. Andrew, (fn. 1) which gift was confirmed by archbishop Anselm, and by several of his successors, archbishops of Canterbury.
The manor of Stoke is thus described in the general survey of Domesday, taken about four years afterwards, under the general title of the bishop of Rochester's lands.
In How hundred. The same bishop (of Rochester) holds Estoches. In the time of king Edward the Confessor, it was taxed at five sulings, and now at three. The arable land is five carucates. In demesne there are two carucates, and 10 villeins, with five borderers, having 4 carucates. There is a church, and 4 servants, and 4 acres of meadow. In the time of king Edward, and afterwards, and now it was, and is worth eight pounds and 20 pence, and yet he who holds it pays 13 pounds and 20 pence.
This manor was, and is belonging to the bishopric of Rochester; but earl Godwin, in the time of king Edward, bought it of two men, who held it of the bishop, and this sale was made without his knowledge.
But after that, William being king, Lanfranc the archbishop recovered it against the bishop of Baieux, and from thence the church of Rochester is now seised of it.
Gundulph, bishop of Rochester, having divided the revenues of his church between himself and his convent, allotted this manor to the share of the monks, ad victum, that is, to the use of their refectory; (fn. 2) and the same was confirmed to them, by several of the succeeding kings, archbishops, and bishops of Rochester. (fn. 3)
On bishop Gilbert de Glanvill's coming to the see of Rochester in 1185, he found it much impoverished, by the gifts of several of the best estates belonging to it made by bishop Gundulph, to the monks of his priory. This occasioned a dispute between them, the bishop claiming this manor, among others, as having belonged to the maintenance of his table. In consequence of which, though he wrested the church of Stoke from them, yet they continued in possession of this manor, with its appendages, till the dissolution of the priory in the reign of king Henry VIII.
In the 7th year of king Edward I. the bishop of Rochester claimed certain liberties, by the grant of king Henry I. in all his lands and fees, and others by antient custom, in the lands of his priory in Stoke, and other lands belonging to his church; (fn. 4) which were allowed by the jury, as they were again in the 21st year of that reign, upon a Quo warranto; and again in the 7th year of king Edward II. and they were confirmed by letters of inspeximus, granted by king Edward III. in his 30th year. In the 21st year of king Edward I. on another Quo warranto, the prior of Rochester claimed that he and his predecessors had, in the manors of Stoke, &c. view of frank-pledge, from beyond memory, which was allowed by the jury. He also claimed free-warren, by grant from Henry I. but the jury found that neither he nor his predecessors had used it, therefore it was determined, that they should remain without that liberty, but king Edward I. by his charter, in his 23d year, granted that liberty to the prior and convent in all their demesne lands of this manor, among others; so that no one should enter on them, either to hunt, or to take any thing which belonged to warren, without their licence, on the forfeiture of ten pounds. In the 15th year of king Edward I. the manor of Stoke was valued at nine pounds.
On the dissolution of the priory of Rochester in the 32d year of king Henry VIII. this manor was surrendered, with the other possessions of it, into the king's hands, who presently after, in his 33d year, settled it, on his new-founded dean and chapter of Rochester, with whom the inheritance of it continues at this time.
There is a court-leet and court-baron held for this manor.
In 1720, Jacob Sawbridge, one of the South-Sea directors, purchased the lease of the manor-farm of Stoke, under the yearly rent of twenty eight pounds, clear of all taxes, the rack rent of which, was ninety pounds per annum. The present lessee is the Right Hon. John, earl of Darnley.
TUDERS, formerly spelt Teuders, is a manor in this parish, which antiently was held of the bishop of Rochester, as of his manor of Stoke.
In the 12th year of king John, this estate was held by Hugo de Stokes, as half a knight's fee, of the bishop of Rochester, by knight's service. (fn. 5) His descendant, Theodore de Stokes, afterwards possessed it, (fn. 6) and ingrafted his name on it; for from that time this manor was called Theodores, and for shortness, Tudors; and Philipott says, he had seen an antient roll of Kentish arms, wherein Tudor of Stoke bore the same coat armour with Owen Theodore, vulgarly called Tuder, being Azure, a chevron between four helmets argent.
After this name was extinct here, this manor came into that of Woodward; one of whom, Edward Woodward, possessed it at the latter end of Henry VIII's reign. His descendant, in the beginning of the reign of queen Elizabeth, conveyed it to John Wilkins gent. of Stoke parsonage, who died in the 19th year of that reign, and was succeeded in it by his kinsman and heir, George Wilkins, gent. who married Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Mr. John Copinger, of Alhallows, by whom he left no issue. He lies buried in this church. His arms were, Gules, on a chevron argent, a demi lion between two martlets sable, between three welk shells or; one of whose descendants, about the beginning of king Charles I's reign, alienated it to Bright, and Edward Bright, clerk, died possessed of it in the year 1670, on which this estate, by virtue of a mortgage term, passed into the possession of William Norcliffe, esq. of the Temple, London, whose widow possessed it after his decease, and since her death it is become the property of the Rev. Mr. Henry Southwell, of Wisbeach, in the Isle of Ely, who is the present owner of it.
Hugo de Stokes, owner of this manor in the reign of king Stephen, gave the tithes of it to the monks of St. Andrew's, in Rochester, to whom it was confirmed by archbishop Theobald, and the prior and convent of Canterbury, (fn. 7) and by several bishops of Rochester. (fn. 8)
At the dissolution of the priory, in the 32d year of king Henry VIII. this portion of tithes, together with the rest of the possessions of the monastery, was surrendered into the king's hands, who settled it next year, on his new-erected dean and chapter of Rochester, where it now remains.
This portion of tithes, called Tudor's portion, was surveyed soon after the death of king Charles I. in 1649, when it was returned, that the same arose out of the tenement of Tudors, and several other tenements, called Bartons, in the parish of Stoke, with six fields, containing by estimation, fifty-three acres; the improved value of which premises was five pounds per annum, all which were let by the late dean and chapter, anno 3 king Charles I. to Sarah Wilkins, at 6s. and 8d. per annum.
The present lessee is Baldwin Duppa Duppa, of Hollingborne, in this county.
MALMAYNES is a manor in this parish, now commonly known by the name of Maamans Hall, which was given, as well as that of Stoke, by the Conqueror, at his accession to the crown, to his half-brother, Odo, as has been already mentioned; and when archbishop Lanfranc recovered the latter from the bishop, at the noted assembly of the county at Pinenden, as having before belonged to the church of Rochester, this manor was then likewise in his possession. Accordingly it is thus entered in the survey of Domesday, under the general title of that prelate's lands:
The same Ansgotus (de Rochester) holds of the bishop (of Baieux) Stoches. It was taxed at two sulings. The arable land is two carucates, and there are in demesne . . . with seven borderers. There is one fishery of two shillings. In the time of king Edward, and afterwards, it was worth one hundred shillings, now one hundred and ten shillings. Anschil held it of king Edward.
On the disgrace of the bishop of Baieux in 1083, this, among the rest of his estates, was confilcated to the crown. After which it became part of the possessions of the family of Malmaines, a branch of which resided here, and fixed their name on it. John de Malmaines, son of Henry, died possessed of it in the 10th year of king Edward II. In the 20th year of king Edward III. the heirs of Thomas de Malmayns, of Hoo, paid aid for three quarters of a knight's fee, which John Malmayns before held here of the king.
Richard Filiot seems soon afterwards to have been in possession of this manor, which passed from him into the family of Carew, and Nicholas Carew, of Bedington, in Surry, died possessed of it in the 14th year of king Richard II. His son, Nicholas de Careu, armiger, de Bedington, as he wrote himself, (fn. 9) in the 9th year of king Henry V. conveyed this manor by sale to Iden; from which name it passed, in the latter end of king Henry VIII's reign, to John Parker, whose arms were, Sable, on a fess ingrailed argent, between three hinds tripping or, three torteauxes, each charged with a pheon of the second, which coat is now quartered by lord Teynham. (fn. 10) His sole daughter and heir, Elizabeth, carried it in marriage to John Roper, esq. of Linsted, who was first knighted, and afterwards created baron of Teynham, in this county. His son, Christopher, lord Teynham, died in 1622, and by his will devised this manor to his second son, William Roper, esq. who alienated it, in the reign of king Charles I. to Jones, in whose descendants it continued till the reign of king George I. when it passed by sale from them to Baldwin Duppa, esq. who died in 1737, and his son, Baldwin Duppa, esq. of Hollingborne-hill, possessed it at his death in 1764, since which it has continued in the same family the present owner, being Baldwin Duppa Duppa, esq. of that place.
Sir John Malmeyns, of this parish, in 1303, made his petition to Robert, abbot, and the convent of Boxley, appropriators of this church; that as he was, on account of his house being situated at such a distance from the parish church, often prevented from attending divine service there, he might be enabled to build an oratory, for himself and his family, on his own estate, and might have a priest to celebrate divine services in it. To which the abbot and convent assented, provided, as far as might be, no prejudice might by it accrue to the mother church, themselves, or the vicars of it, which licence was confirmed by Thomas, bishop of Rochester, that year.
RALPH MALESMÆINS, about the reign of king Henry I. became a monk of the priory of St. Andrew, in Rochester, and on that account granted to the monks there his tithes of Stoches; and after his death Robert Malesmæins, his son, confirmed it, as did Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, Ralph, prior and the convent of Canterbury, and several of the succeeding bishops of Rochester.
At the dissolution of the priory of Rochester, in the 32d year of king Henry VIII. this portion of tithes was surrendered into the king's hands, who granted it the nextyear, by his dotation charter, to his new-erected dean and chapter of Rochester, where the inheritance of it now remains.
The present lessee, under the dean and chapter, is Baldwin Duppa Duppa, esq. of Hollingborne-hill.
Reginald de Cobham, son of John de Cobham, possessed lands in this parish, and in the 14th year of king Edward III. procured free-warren in all his demesne lands in Stoke.
King Henry VIII. in his 32d year, granted to George Brooke, lord Cobham, a marsh, called Coleman's, alias Bridge-marsh, lying in Oysterland, alias Eastland, in Stoke; and other premises, parcel of the priory of Christ-church, to hold in capite, by knights service.
CHARITIES.
RICHARD WHITE, of Chalk, gave by will in 1722, an annual sum of money to the poor of this parish not receiving alms, vested in Mr. John Prebble, and of the yearly product of ten shillings.
STOKE is within the ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION of the diocese and deanry of Rochester. The church, is dedicated to St. Peter.
In the chancel are these brasses: one for John Wilkins, gentleman, born in this parish, married Elizabeth, daughter of John Coppinger, esq. of Alhallows, obt. s. p. 1575, arms, Wilkins impaling Coppinger, and other coats, one for William Cardiff, B. D. vicar, obt. 1415; another for Frances Grimestone, daughter of Ralph Coppinger, esq. and wife of Henry Grimestone, esq. obt. 1608.
This church was antiently an appendage to the manor of Stoke.
King Henry I. gave his tithe of Stoke to the church of St. Andrew, and Gundulph, bishop of Rochester, and when he allotted the manor of Stoke to the share of the monks of his convent, the church passed as an appendage to it, and it continued with them, till bishop Gilbert de Glanvill took this church, among other premises, from them, and annexed it again to his see, where it remained till Richard, bishop of Rochester, with the consent of his chapter, granted the appropriation of it to the abbot and convent of Boxley for ever; saving the portions of tithes, which the prior and convent used to take, from the demesnes of Sir Henry Malmeyns, and those arising from the free tenement of Theodore de Stokes, and the portion of four sacks of wheat due to the almoner of Rochester, and of four sacks of wheat due to the lessees of St. Bartholomew, which they used to take by the hands of the rector of the church, and which for the future they should receive by the hands of the abbot and convent, saving also all episcopal right, and a competent vicarage to be assessed by him, which instrument was dated in 1244. Soon after which, the bishop endowed this vicarage as follows:
First, he decreed, that the perpetual vicar of it should have all the altarage, with all small tithes, excepting hay, which should remain to the parson; and that he should have the chapel, and the cemetery of it, and the crost adjoining, and one mark of silver yearly, at the hand of the parson of Stoke, and that the vicar should sustain all burthens due and accustomed, and contribute a third part to the repair and amendment of the chancel, books, vestments, and other ornaments.
Richard, bishop of Rochester, in 1280, at the instance of the prior and convent of Rochester, made enquiry in what manner the monks used antiently to retain their tithes in their manors, and in what manner they used to impart them to the parish churches of the same, when it was certified, that in the manor of Stoke, the parish church took the whole tithes of sheaves only, but of other small tithes, as well as of mills and hay, it did not, nor used to take any thing; and he decreed, that the parish church of Stoke should be content with the tenths of the sheaves of all kind of corn only. All which was confirmed to them by John, archbishop of Canterbury, by his let of inspeximus, in the year 1281.
In 1315 the abbot and convent of Boxley, as appropriators of the church of Stoke, claimed an exemption of tithes for a mill newly erected by them in the parish of Halstow, for the herbage of their marsh of Horsemershe, and for the rushes increasing, and the lambs feeding in it, before Walter, archbishop of Canterbury, and his commissaries, then visiting this diocese, as metropolitan, which claim was allowed by the decree of the archbishop, &c. that year.
On the dissolution of the abbey of Boxley, in the 29th year of king Henry VIII. the church and vicarage of Stoke, together with the rest of the possessions of that monastery, were surrendered into the king's hands.
Soon after which, this rectory, with the advowson of the vicarage, was granted by the king to William Goodwyn, to hold in capite by knights service, and he, in the 36th year of that reign, alienated it with the king's licence, to John Parke, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, carried these premises in marriage to John Roper, esq. of Linsted, afterwards created lord Teynham; who in the 9th year of queen Elizabeth, alienated them to John Wilkins, gent. (fn. 11) who levied a fine of them in Easter term, anno 17 of that reign, and died possessed of them in the 19th year of it. He was succeeded in this parsonage and advowson by his kinsman and heir, George Wilkins, one of whose descendants, in the beginning of king Charles I's reign, alienated them to Bright, from which name they were sold to Baldwin Duppa, esq. since which they have passed in like manner as Malmains-hall, before described, to Baldwin Duppa Duppa, esq. the present proprietor of the parsonage and advowson of the vicarage of Stoke. The rectory of Stoke pays a fee farm to the church of ten shillings and eight-pence per annum.
The vicarage of Stoke is a discharged living in the king's books, of the clear yearly certified value of thirty pounds, the yearly tenths being 17s. 2d.
In 1650, this vicarage, on the survey then taken of it, was valued at forty pounds, (fn. 12) Mr. Thomas Miller, then incumbent.
¶NICHOLAS DE CARREU, senior, lord of the manor of Malmeynes, in this parish, with the licence of king Edward III. which was afterwards further renewed and confirmed by king Richard II. in the 12th year of that reign, anno 1388, founded A CHANTRY for two priests in this church of Stoke; and he then, by his deed, endowed it with one messuage and one acre of land, in this parish, for their habitation and their maintenance, an annual rent of twenty-four marcs out of his manor, called Malemeynesemanere, which was confirmed by William, bishop of Rochester, who with the consent of his convent, made rules and orders for their presentation and admission, from time to time, and for the good order and celebration of divine rites in it, to which instrument the bishop, the prior and convent of Rochester, Nicholas de Carreu, and John Maister, and John Buset, chantry priests, severally set their seals.
Een zeer creatief huwelijks cadeau, met grote dank aan de makers hiervan!
A very nice wedding present.
Presented in July 1961.
Produced (in France) till 1993. In other countries like Serbia and Argentina a few years longer.
956cc,
666 kg.
New Dutch license number: Dec. 5, 2005.
Amsterdam-C., Anne Frankstraat, July 7, 2014.
+++ 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 Panther tank, officially Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (abbreviated PzKpfw V) with ordnance inventory designation Sd.Kfz. 171, was a German medium tank of World War II. It was used on the Eastern and Western Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war. The Panther was intended to counter the Soviet T-34 medium tank and to replace the Panzer III and Panzer IV. Nevertheless, it served alongside the Panzer IV and the heavier Tiger I until the end of the war. It is considered one of the best tanks of World War II for its excellent firepower, protection, and mobility although its reliability in early times were less impressive.
The Panther was a compromise. While having essentially the same Maybach V12 petrol (700 hp) engine as the Tiger I, it had better gun penetration, was lighter and faster, and could traverse rough terrain better than the Tiger I. The trade-off was weaker side armor, which made it vulnerable to flanking fire. The Panther proved to be effective in open country and long-range engagements.
The Panther was far cheaper to produce than the heavy Tiger I. Key elements of the Panther design, such as its armor, transmission, and final drive, were simplifications made to improve production rates and address raw material shortages. Despite this the overall design remain described by some as "overengineered". The Panther was rushed into combat at the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 despite numerous unresolved technical problems, leading to high losses due to mechanical failure. Most design flaws were rectified by late 1943 and early 1944, though the bombing of production plants, increasing shortages of high-quality alloys for critical components, shortage of fuel and training space, and the declining quality of crews all impacted the tank's effectiveness.
Though officially classified as a medium tank, at 44.8 metric tons the Panther was closer to a heavy tank weight and the same category as the American M26 Pershing (41.7 tons), British Churchill (40.7 tons) and the Soviet IS-2 (46 tons) heavy tanks. The Panther's weight caused logistical problems, such as an inability to cross certain bridges, otherwise the tank had a very high power-to-weight ratio which made it highly mobile.
The Panther was only used marginally outside of Germany, mostly captured or recovered vehicles, some even after the war. Japan already received in 1943 a specimen for evaluation. During March–April 1945, Bulgaria received 15 Panthers of various makes (D, A, and G variants) from captured and overhauled Soviet stocks; they only saw limited (training) service use. In May 1946, Romania received 13 Panther tanks from the USSR, too.
After the war, France was able to recover enough operable vehicles and components to equip its army and offer vehicles for sale. The French Army's 503e Régiment de Chars de Combat was equipped with a force of 50 Panthers from 1944 to 1947, in the 501st and 503rd Tank Regiments. These remained in service until they were replaced by French-built ARL 44 heavy tanks.
In 1946, Sweden sent a delegation to France to examine surviving specimens of German military vehicles. During their visit, the delegates found a few surviving Panthers and had one shipped to Sweden for further testing and evaluation, which continued until 1961.
However, this was not the Panther’s end of service. The last appearance by WWII German tanks on the world’s battlefields came in 1967, when Syria’s panzer force faced off against modern Israeli armor. Quite improbably, Syria had assembled a surprisingly wide collection of ex-Wehrmacht vehicles from a half-dozen sources over a decade and a half timeframe. This fleet consisted primarily of late production Panzer V, StuGIII and Jagdpanzer IVs, plus some Hummel SPAAGs and a handful Panthers. The tanks were procured from France, Spain, and Czechoslovakia, partly revamped before delivery.
All of the Panthers Syria came from Czechoslovakia. Immediately after Germany’s collapse in May 1945, the Soviet army established a staging area for surrendered German tanks at a former Wehrmacht barracks at Milovice, about 24 miles north of Prague, Czechoslovakia. By January 1946, a total of roughly 200 operational Panzer IVs and Panthers of varying versions were at this facility. Joining them was a huge cache of spare parts found at a former German tank repair depot in Teplice, along with ammunition collected from all over Czechoslovakia and the southern extremity of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany. Throughout 1946, the Czechoslovak government’s clean-up of WWII battlefields recovered more than one hundred further tank wrecks, of which 80 were pieced back together to operational status and handed over to the Czechoslovakian Army,
In early 1948, the now-nationalized CKD Works began a limited upkeep of the tanks, many of which had not had depot-level overhauls since the war. A few were rebuilt with a Czechoslovak-designed steering system, but this effort was halted due to cost. These tanks remained operational in the Czechoslovak army until the end of 1954, when sufficient T-34s were available to phase them out.
A Syrian military delegation visited Prague from 8 April – 22 April 1955. An agreement was struck for the sale, amongst other items, of 45 Panzer IVs and 15 Panthers. Despite their obsolescence the Czechoslovaks were not about to just give the tanks away and demanded payment in a ‘hard’ western currency, namely British pounds. The cost was £4,500 each (£86,000 or $112,850 in 2016 money), far above what they were probably worth militarily, especially considering the limited amount of foreign currency reserves available to the Damascus government. The deal included refurbishment, a full ammunition loadout for each, and a limited number of spare parts. Nonetheless, the deal was closed, and the tanks’ delivery started in early November 1955.
The Syrians were by that time already having dire problems keeping their French-sourced panzers operational, and in 1958, a second contract was signed with CKD Works for 15 additional Panzer IVs and 10 more Panthers, these being in lesser condition or non-operational, for use as spare parts hulks. An additional 16 refurbished Maybach engines for both types were also included in this contract, as well as more ammunition.
The refurbished Panthers for Syria had their original 7.5 cm KwK 42 L70 replaced with the less powerful Rheinmetall 7.5 cm KwK 40 L48 gun – dictated by the fact that this gun was already installed in almost all other Syrian tanks of German origin and rounds for the KwK 42 L70 were not available anymore. and the Panther’s full ammo load was 87 rounds. The KwK 40 L48 fired a standard APCBC shell at 750 m/s and could penetrate 109 mm (4.3 in) hardened steel at 1.000 m range. This was enough to take out an M4 Sherman at this range from any angle under ideal circumstances. With an APCR shell the gun was even able to penetrate 130 mm (5.1 in) of hardened steel at the same distance.
Outwardly, the gun switch was only recognizable through the shorter barrel with a muzzle brake, the German WWII-era TZF.5f gunsight was retained by the Syrians. Additionally, there were two secondary machine guns, either MG-34s or MG-42s, one coaxial with the main gun and a flexible one in a ball mount in the tank’s front glacis plate.
A few incomplete Panther hulls without turret were also outfitted with surplus Panzer IV turrets that carried the same weapon, but the exact share of them among the Syrian tanks is unknown – most probably less than five, and they were among the batch delivered in the course of the second contract from 1958.
As they had been lumped all together in Czechoslovak army service, the Syrians received a mixed bag of Panzer IV and Panther versions, many of them “half-breeds” or “Frankensteins”. Many had the bow machine gun removed, either already upon delivery or as a later field modification, and in some cases the machine gun in the turret was omitted as well.
An obvious modification of the refurbished Czech export Panthers for Syria was the installation of new, lighter road wheels. These were in fact adapted T-54 wheels from Czechoslovakian license production that had just started in 1957 - instead of revamping the Panthers’ original solid steel wheels, especially their rubberized tread surfaces, it was easier to replace them altogether, what also made spare parts logistics easier. The new wheels had almost the same diameter as the original German road wheels from WWII, and they were simply adapted to the Panther’s attachment points of the torsion bar suspension’s swing arms. Together with the lighter main gun and some other simplifications, the Syrian Panthers’ empty weight was reduced by more than 3 tonnes.
The Czechoslovaks furthermore delivered an adapter kit to mount a Soviet-made AA DShK 12.7mm machine gun to the commander cupola. This AA mount had originally been developed after WWII for the T-34 tank, and these kits were fitted to all initial tanks of the 1955 order. Enough were delivered that some could be installed on a few of the Spanish- / French-sourced tanks, too.
It doesn’t appear that the Czechoslovaks updated the radio fit on any of the ex-German tanks, and it’s unclear if the Syrians installed modern Soviet radios. The WWII German Fu 5 radio required a dedicated operator (who also manned the bow machine gun); if a more modern system was installed not requiring a dedicated operator, this crew position could be eliminated altogether, what favored the deletion of the bow machine gun on many ex-German Syrian tanks. However, due to their more spacious hull and turret, many Panthers were apparently outfitted with a second radio set and used as command tanks – visible through a second whip antenna on the hull.
A frequent domestic Panther upgrade were side skirts to suppress dust clouds while moving and to prevent dust ingestion into the engines and clogged dust filters. There was no standardized solution, though, and solutions ranged from simple makeshift rubber skirts bolted to the tanks’ flanks to wholesale transplants from other vehicles, primarily Soviet tanks. Some Panthers also had external auxiliary fuel tanks added to their rear, in the form of two 200 l barrels on metal racks of Soviet origin. These barrels were not directly connected with the Panther’s fuel system, though, but a pump-and-hose kit was available to re-fuel the internal tanks from this on-board source in the field. When empty or in an emergency - the barrels were placed on top of the engine bay and leaking fuel quite hazardous - the barrels/tanks could be jettisoned by the crew from the inside.
Inclusive of the cannibalization hulks, Syria received a total of roughly 80 former German tanks from Czechoslovakia. However, at no time were all simultaneously operational and by 1960, usually only two or three dozen were combat-ready.
Before the Six Day War, the Syrian army was surprisingly unorganized, considering the amount of money being pumped into it. There was no unit larger than a brigade, and the whole Syrian army had a sort of “hub & spokes” system originating in Damascus, with every individual formation answering directly to the GHQ rather than a chain of command. The Panthers, Panzer IVs and StuG IIIs were in three independent tank battalions, grossly understrength, supporting the normal tank battalions of three infantry brigades (the 8th, 11th, and 19th) in the Golan Heights. The Jagdpanzer IVs were in a separate independent platoon attached to a tank battalion operating T-34s and SU-100s. How the Hummel SPGs were assigned is unknown.
The first active participation of ex-German tanks in Syrian service was the so-called “Water War”. This was not really a war but rather a series of skirmishes between Israel and Syria during the mid-1960s. With increasing frequency starting in 1964, Syria emplaced tanks on the western slope of the Golan Heights, almost directly on the border, to fire down on Israeli irrigation workers and farmers in the Galilee region. Surprisingly (considering the small number available) Syria chose the Panzer IV for this task. It had no feature making it better or worse than any other tank; most likely the Syrians felt they were the most expendable tanks in their inventory as Israeli counterfire was expected. The panzers were in defilade (dug in) and not easy to shoot back at; due to their altitude advantage.
In 1964, Syria announced plans to divert 35% of the Jordan River’s flow away from Israel, to deprive the country of drinking water. The Israelis responded that they would consider this an act of war and, true to their word, engaged the project’s workers with artillery and sniper fire. Things escalated quickly; in 1965, Israeli M4 Shermans on Israeli soil exchanged fire with the Syrian Panzer IVs above inconclusively. A United Nations peacekeeping team ordered both sides to disengage from the border for a set period of time to “cool off”, but the UN “Blue Berets” were detested and considered useless by both the Israelis and Syrians, and both sides used the lull to prepare their next move. When the cooling-off period ended, the Syrians moved Panzer IVs and now some Panthers, too, back into position. However, the IDF had now Centurion tanks waiting for them, with their fire arcs pre-planned out. The Cold War-era Centurion had heavy armor, a high-velocity 105mm gun, and modern British-made optics. It outclassed the WWII panzers in any imaginable way and almost immediately, two Syrian Panzer IVs and a Panther were destroyed. Others were abandoned by their crews and that was the end of the situation.
Syria’s participation in the Six Say War that soon followed in 1967 war was sloppy and ultimately disastrous. Israel initially intended the conflict to be limited to a preemptive strike against Egypt to forestall an imminent attack by that country, with the possibility of having to fight Syria and Jordan defensively if they responded to the operations against Egypt. The war against Egypt started on 5 June 1967. Because of the poor organization of the Syrian army, news passed down from Damascus on the fighting in the Sinai was scarce and usually outdated by the time it reached the brigade level. Many Syrian units (including the GHQ) were using civilian shortwave radios to monitor Radio Cairo which was spouting off outlandish claims of imaginary Egyptian victories, even as Israeli divisions were steamrolling towards the Suez Canal.
Syrian vehicles of German origin during the Six Day War were either painted overall in beige or in a dark olive drab green. Almost all had, instead of tactical number codes, the name of a Syrian soldier killed in a previous war painted on the turret in white. During the Six Day War, no national roundel was typically carried, even though the Syrian flag was sometimes painted to the turret flanks. However just as the conflict was starting, white circles were often painted onto the top sides of tanks as quick ID markings for aircraft, and some tanks had red recognition triangles added to the side areas: Syrian soldiers were notoriously trigger-happy, and the decreased camouflage effect was likely cancelled out by the reduced odds of being blasted by a comrade!
During the evening of 5 June, Syrian generals in Damascus urged the government to take advantage of the situation and mount an immediate invasion of Israel. Planning and preparation were literally limited to a few hours after midnight, and shortly after daybreak on 6 June, Syrian commanders woke up with orders to invade Israel. The three infantry brigades in the Golan, backed up by several independent battalions, were to spearhead the attack as the rest of the Syrian army mobilized.
There was no cohesion at all: Separate battalions began their advance whenever they happened to be ready to go, and brigades went forward, missing subunits that lagged behind. A platoon attempting a southern outflank maneuver tried to ford the Jordan River in the wrong spot and was washed away. According to a KGB report, at least one Syrian unit “exhibited cowardice” and ignored its orders altogether.
On 7 June, 24 hours into their attack, Syrian forces had only advanced 2 miles into Israel. On 8 June, the IDF pushed the Syrians back to the prewar border and that afternoon, Israeli units eliminated the last Egyptian forces in the Sinai and began a fast redeployment of units back into Israel. Now the Syrians were facing serious problems.
On 9 June, Israeli forces crossed into the Golan Heights. They came by the route the Syrians least expected, an arc hugging the Lebanese border. Now for the first time, Syria’s panzers (considered too slow and fragile for the attack) were encountered. The next day, 10 June 1967, was an absolute rout as the Syrians were being attacked from behind by IDF units arcing southwards from the initial advance, plus Israel’s second wave coming from the west. It was later estimated that Syria lost between 20-25% of its total military vehicle inventory in a 15-hour span on 10 June, including eight Panthers. A ceasefire was announced at midnight, ending Syria’s misadventure. Syria permanently lost the Golan Heights to Israel.
By best estimate, Syria had just five Panthers and twenty-five Panzer IVs fully operational on 6 June 1967, with maybe another ten or so tanks partially operational or at least functional enough to take into combat. Most – if not all – of the ex-French tanks were probably already out of service by 1967, conversely the entire ex-Spanish lot was in use, along with some of the ex-Czechoslovak vehicles. The conflict’s last kill was on 10 June 1967 when a Panzer IV was destroyed by an Israeli M50 Super Sherman (an M4 Sherman hull fitted with a new American engine, and a modified turret housing Israeli electronics and a high-velocity French-made 75mm gun firing HEAT rounds). Like the Centurion, the Super Sherman outclassed the Panzer IV, and the Panther only fared marginally better.
Between 1964-1973 the USSR rebuilt the entire Syrian military from the ground up, reorganizing it along Warsaw Pact lines and equipping it with gear strictly of Soviet origin. There was no place for ex-Wehrmacht tanks and in any case, Czechoslovakia had ended spares & ammo support for the Panzer IV and the Panthers, so the types had no future. The surviving tanks were scrapped in Syria, except for a single Panzer IV survivor sold to a collector in Jordan.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator)
Weight: 50 tonnes (55.1 long tons; 45.5 short tons)
Length: 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in) hull only
7.52 m (24 ft 7¾ in) overall with gun facing forward
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in) hull only
3,70 m (12 ft 1¾ in) with retrofitted side skirts
Height: 2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)’
Ground clearance: 56 cm (22 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 liters (160 imp gal; 190 US gal),
some Syrian Panthers carried two additional external 200 l fuel drums
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.93 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 56 km/h (35 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi) on roads; 450 km (280 mi)with auxiliary fuel tanks
100 km (62 mi) cross-country
Power/weight: 14 PS (10.1 kW)/tonne (12.7 hp/ton)
Engine & transmission:
Maybach HL230 V-12 gasoline engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gearbox with 7 forward 1 reverse gear
Armament:
1× 7,5 cm KwK 40 (L/48) with 87 rounds
2× 7.92 mm MG 34 or 42, or similar machine guns;
one co-axial with the main gun, another in the front glacis plate
with a total of 5.100 rounds (not always mounted)
Provision for a 12.7 mm DShK or Breda anti-aircraft machine gun on the commander cupola
The kit and its assembly:
A rather exotic what-if model, even though it’s almost built OOB. Inspiration came when I stumbled upon the weird Syrian Panzer IVs that were operated against Israel during the Six Day War – vehicles you would not expect there, and after more than 20 years after WWII. But when I did some more research, I was surprised about the numbers and the variety of former German tanks that Syria had gathered from various European countries, and it made me wonder if the Panther could not have been among this shaggy fleet, too?
I had a surplus Dragon Panther Spähpanzer in The Stash™, to be correct a “PzBeobWg V Ausf. G”, an observation and artillery fire guidance conversion that actually existed in small numbers, and I decided to use it as basis for this odd project. The Dragon kit has some peculiarities, though: its hull is made from primed white metal and consists of an upper and lower half that are held together by small screws! An ambiguous design, because the parts do not fit as good as IP parts, so that the model has a slightly die-cast-ish aura. PSR is necessary at the seams, but due to the metal it’s not easy to do. Furthermore, you have to use superglue everywhere, just as on a resin kit. On the other side, surface details are finely molded and crisp, even though many bits have to be added manually. However, the molded metal pins that hold the wheels are very robust and relatively thin – a feature I exploited for a modified running gear (see below).
For the modified Panther in my mind I had to retrograde the turret back to a late standard turret with mantlet parts left over from a Hasegawa kit – they fitted perfectly! The PzBeobWg V only comes with a stubby gun barrel dummy. But I changed the armament, anyway, and implanted an aftermarket white metal and brass KwK 40 L48, the weapon carried by all Syrian Panzer IVs, the Jagdpanzer IVs as well as the StuG IIIs. This standardization would IMHO make sense, even if it meant a performance downgrade from the original, longer KwK 42 L70.
For a Syrian touch, inspired by installations on the Panzer IVs, I added a mount for a heavy DShK machine gun on the commander’s cupola, which is a resin aftermarket kit from Armory Models Group (a kit that consists of no less than five fiddly parts for just a tiny machine gun!).
To change and modernize the Panther’s look further, I gave it side skirts, leftover from a ModelCollect T-72 kit, which had to be modified only slightly to fit onto the molded side skirt consoles on the Panther’s metal hull. A further late addition were the fuel barrels from a Trumpeter T-54 kit that I stumbled upon when I looked for the skirts among my pile of tank donor parts. Even though they look like foreign matter on the Panther’s tail, their high position is plausible and similar to the original arrangement on many Soviet post-WWII tanks. The whip antennae on turret and hull were created with heated black sprue material.
As a modern feature and to change the Panther’s overall look even more, I replaced its original solid “dish” road wheels with T-54/55 “starfish” wheels, which were frequently retrofitted to T-34-85s during the Fifties. These very fine aftermarket resin parts (all real-world openings are actually open, and there’s only little flash!) came from OKB Grigorovich from Bulgaria. The selling point behind this idea is/was that the Panther and T-54/55 wheels have almost the same diameter: in real life it’s 860 vs. 830 mm, so that the difference in 1:72 is negligible. Beneficially, the aftermarket wheels came in two halves, and these were thin enough to replace the Panther’s interleaved wheels without major depth problems.
Adapting the parts to the totally different wheel arrangement was tricky, though, especially due to the Dragon kit’s one-piece white metal chassis that makes any mods difficult. My solution: I retained the inner solid wheels from the Panther (since they are hardly visible in the “3rd row”), plus four pairs of T-54/55 wheels for the outer, more rows of interleaved wheels. The “inner” T-54/55 wheel halves were turned around, received holes to fit onto the metal suspension pins and scratched hub covers. The “outside” halves were taken as is but received 2 mm spacer sleeves on their back sides (styrene tube) for proper depth and simply to improve their hold on the small and rounded metal pin tips. This stunt worked better than expected and looks really good, too!
Painting and markings:
Basically very simple, and I used pictures of real Syrian Panzer IVs as benchmark. I settled for the common green livery variant, and though simple and uniform, I tried to add some “excitement” to it and attempted to make old paint shine through. The hull’s lower surface areas were first primed with RAL 7008 (Khakigrau, a rather brownish tone), then the upper surfaces were sprayed with a lighter sand brown tone, both applied from rattle cans.
On top of that, a streaky mix of Revell 45 and 46 – a guesstimate for the typical Syrian greyish, rather pale olive drab tone - was thinly applied with a soft, flat brush, so that the brownish tones underneath would shine through occasionally. Once dry, the layered/weathered effect was further emphasized through careful vertical wet-sanding and rubbing on all surfaces with a soft cotton cloth.
The rubber side skirts were painted with an anthracite base and the dry-brushed with light grey and beige.
The model then received an overall washing with a highly thinned mix of grey and dark brown acrylic artist paint. The vinyl tracks (as well as the IP spare track links on the hull) were painted, too, with a mix of grey, red brown and iron, all acrylic paints, too, that do not interact chemically with the soft vinyl.
The decals/markings are minimal; the Arabian scribble on the turret (must be a name?), using the picture of a Syrian Panzer IV as benchmark, was painted in white by hand, as well as the white circle on the turret roof. The orange ID triangles are a nice contrast, even though I was not able to come up with real-life visual evidence for them. I just found a color picture of a burned T-34-85 wreck with them, suggesting that the color was a dull orange red and not florescent orange, as claimed in some sources. I also found illustrations of the triangles as part of 1:35 decal sets for contemporary Syrian T-34-85s from FC Model Trend and Star Models, where they appear light red. For the model, they were eventually cut out from decal sheet material (TL-Modellbau, in a shade called “Rotorange”, what appears to be a good compromise).
Dry-brushing with light grey and beige to further emphasize edges and details followed. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic vanish overall, and some additional very light extra dry-brushing with silver was done to simulate flaked paint. Dirt and rust residues were added here and there with watercolors. After final assembly, the lower areas of the model were furthermore powdered with mineral pigments to simulate dust.
The idea of a modernized WWII Panther: a simple idea that turned into a major conversion. With the resin DShK machine gun and T-54/55 wheel set the costs of this project escalated a little, but in hindsight I find that the different look and the mix of vintage German and modern Soviet elements provide this Panther with that odd touch that sets it apart from a simple paint/marking variation? I really like the outcome, and I think that the effort was worthwhile - this fictional Panther shoehorns well into its intended historical framework. :-D
Mês passado tive um saldo bem comportado, mas nesse apareceu muita coisa.
Vários aí teriam entrado no de janeiro se eu tivesse encontrado com a May antes, na verdade. =p
E o pior é que misturei tudo para tentar organizar pelos vidrinhos e não pelo que chegou junto. Só para dar mais trabalho na hora de explicar. hauhauhaha
Os La Femme para carimbo (Branco Neon e Vermelho) vieram de uma compra na Pop Colors. Quando soubemos que estava tudo em promoção porque a loja ia acabar a May fez uma compra para nós.
Ravelly (Raquel, Salmão e Celeste) foram comprados aqui mesmo, numa ida ao Centro. A marca já é vendida aqui há um bom tempo, mas eu não tinha nenhum vidrinho.
Os Hits para carimbo (Preto Noturno - que veio azul -, Prata Lunar e Branco Nevasca) vieram da Pop.
O Hits Flocado (Poderosa) foi a Fran quem conseguiu para mim em SP. Obrigada, Fran! =*
Os tints da Blant (Violeta, Laranja e Verde Lima) e a cerinha da Anita vieram da Pop.
A garrafinha cheia de estrelinhas lindas foi presente da Bah. Obrigada! *.*
Os Jade sand (Detoxi, Sand Storm, Extravaganza, Sahara Desert e Sugar Touch) vieram da Pop. Por incrível que pareça só agora comprei sands da marca. Agora só falta a primeira coleção. =p
O Na Mira 3D foi a May quem comprou outro e me deu o que ela tinha. E os L'Apogée (London, London e Futurista) foi ela quem conseguiu também. Tava procurando muito por eles porque são muito bons para carimbar.
Os Verona (Jade, Coral e Granada) comprei aqui pelo Centro.
O Revlon (Marmalade) foi a Carol quem conseguiu para mim em SP. Obrigada, Carol! <3
O mini Anita (Advogada) foi presente da Su, que veio passar o carnaval aqui em Fortaleza com a gente. Foi ela quem trouxe os vidrinhos da SP para nós. Obrigada! <3
Su, foi bom demais poder conhecê-la pessoalmente! AMEI! Tu sabes que a minha casa estará sempre aberta para te receber de novo quantas vezes quiseres. E da próxima vez passa mais tempo por aqui porque foi pouco. =***
Para terminar o saldo, tem 1/2 pizza da Bourjois (Orange Outrant e Ni Vernis Bleu) e uma história longa. Fiz uma compra no site da Época em janeiro, aproveitando uma promoção muito boa, e peguei 4 vidrinhos dessa coleção porque queria garantir logo uma pizza completa. As compras na Época sempre chegaram rápido e nunca tive problemas, mas dessa vez a SEFAZ aqui do estado resolveu trollar todo mundo e segurou o pacote por lá. Aliás, está lá até hoje (fiz a compra no começo de janeiro, acho que no dia 05). Precisei fazer várias reclamações na loja e na transportadora e não resolviam nada. Tentei contato com a SEFAZ e nunca consegui que me atendessem. Até que um dia entrei em contato com a loja dizendo que não tinha mais condições de aguentar a situação e que gostaria que mandassem minha compra de outra maneira. Para minha tristeza, estavam faltando 2 cores que pedi, mas preferia que mandassem assim mesmo. Enviaram o resto da minha compra dor Sedex e, quando a caixa sair da SEFAZ e voltar para a loja mandarão as cores que faltaram. Não faço a menor ideia de quando isso acontecerá, então minha pizza ficará esperando a outra metade indefinidamente. Pelo menos sei que estou com as duas cores garantidas (que, por sinal, eram as que eu mais queria) a não ser que demore mais um mês lá sem sair do lugar. Se demorar tanto assim vou pedir o dinheiro de volta mesmo. (Fim do meu choroco.)
Esse mês 11 vidrinhos foram embora.
my friend sues brought these to me today.
she thought the frost was going to get them last night but they were spared!!!
Drawing is a form of visual art in which a person uses various drawing instruments to mark paper or another two-dimensional medium. Instruments include graphite pencils, pen and ink, inked brushes, wax color pencils, crayons, charcoal, chalk, pastels, various kinds of erasers, markers, styluses, various metals (such as silverpoint) and electronic drawing.
A drawing instrument releases small amount of material onto a surface, leaving a visible mark. The most common support for drawing is paper, although other materials, such as cardboard, plastic, leather, canvas, and board, may be used. Temporary drawings may be made on a blackboard or whiteboard or indeed almost anything. The medium has been a popular and fundamental means of public expression throughout human history. It is one of the simplest and most efficient means of communicating visual ideas.[1] The wide availability of drawing instruments makes drawing one of the most common artistic activities.
In addition to its more artistic forms, drawing is frequently used in commercial illustration, animation, architecture, engineering and technical drawing. A quick, freehand drawing, usually not intended as a finished work, is sometimes called a sketch. An artist who practices or works in technical drawing may be called a drafter, draftsman or a draughtsman.[2]
Drawing is one of the major forms of expression within the visual arts. It is generally concerned with the marking of lines and areas of tone onto paper/other material, where the accurate representation of the visual world is expressed upon a plane surface.[3] Traditional drawings were monochrome, or at least had little colour,[4] while modern colored-pencil drawings may approach or cross a boundary between drawing and painting. In Western terminology, drawing is distinct from painting, even though similar media often are employed in both tasks. Dry media, normally associated with drawing, such as chalk, may be used in pastel paintings. Drawing may be done with a liquid medium, applied with brushes or pens. Similar supports likewise can serve both: painting generally involves the application of liquid paint onto prepared canvas or panels, but sometimes an underdrawing is drawn first on that same support.
Madame Palmyre with Her Dog, 1897. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
Galileo Galilei. Phases of the Moon. 1616.
Drawing is often exploratory, with considerable emphasis on observation, problem-solving and composition. Drawing is also regularly used in preparation for a painting, further obfuscating their distinction. Drawings created for these purposes are called studies.
There are several categories of drawing, including figure drawing, cartooning, doodling, free hand and shading. There are also many drawing methods, such as line drawing, stippling, shading, the surrealist method of entopic graphomania (in which dots are made at the sites of impurities in a blank sheet of paper, and lines are then made between the dots), and tracing (drawing on a translucent paper, such as tracing paper, around the outline of preexisting shapes that show through the paper).
A quick, unrefined drawing may be called a sketch.
In fields outside art, technical drawings or plans of buildings, machinery, circuitry and other things are often called "drawings" even when they have been transferred to another medium by printing.
History[edit]
Drawing as a Form of Communication Drawing is one of the oldest forms of human expression, with evidence for its existence preceding that of written communication.[5] It is believed that drawing was used as a specialised form of communication before the invent of the written language,[5][6] demonstrated by the production of cave and rock paintings created by Homo sapiens sapiens around 30,000 years ago.[7] These drawings, known as pictograms, depicted objects and abstract concepts.[8] The sketches and paintings produced in prehistoric times were eventually stylised and simplified, leading to the development of the written language as we know it today.
Drawing in the Arts Drawing is used to express one's creativity, and therefore has been prominent in the world of art. Throughout much of history, drawing was regarded as the foundation for artistic practise.[9] Initially, artists used and reused wooden tablets for the production of their drawings.[10] Following the widespread availability of paper in the 14th century, the use of drawing in the arts increased. At this point, drawing was commonly used as a tool for thought and investigation, acting as a study medium whilst artists were preparing for their final pieces of work.[11][12] In a period of artistic flourish, the Renaissance brought about drawings exhibiting realistic representational qualities,[13] where there was a lot of influence from geometry and philosophy.[14]
The invention of the first widely available form of photography led to a shift in the use of drawing in the arts.[15] Photography took over from drawing as a more superior method for accurately representing visual phenomena, and artists began to abandon traditional drawing practises.[16] Modernism in the arts encouraged "imaginative originality"[17] and artists' approach to drawing became more abstract.
Drawing Outside the Arts Although the use of drawing is extensive in the arts, its practice is not confined purely to this field. Before the widespread availability of paper, 12th century monks in European monasteries used intricate drawings to prepare illustrated, illuminated manuscripts on vellum and parchment. Drawing has also been used extensively in the field of science, as a method of discovery, understanding and explanation. In 1616, astronomer Galileo Galilei explained the changing phases of the moon through his observational telescopic drawings.[16] Additionally, in 1924, geophysicist Alfred Wegener used illustrations to visually demonstrate the origin of the continents.The medium is the means by which ink, pigment or color are delivered onto the drawing surface. Most drawing media are either dry (e.g. graphite, charcoal, pastels, Conté, silverpoint), or use a fluid solvent or carrier (marker, pen and ink). Watercolor pencils can be used dry like ordinary pencils, then moistened with a wet brush to get various painterly effects. Very rarely, artists have drawn with (usually decoded) invisible ink. Metalpoint drawing usually employs either of two metals: silver or lead.[20] More rarely used are gold, platinum, copper, brass, bronze, and tinpoint.
Paper comes in a variety of different sizes and qualities, ranging from newspaper grade up to high quality and relatively expensive paper sold as individual sheets.[21] Papers can vary in texture, hue, acidity, and strength when wet. Smooth paper is good for rendering fine detail, but a more "toothy" paper holds the drawing material better. Thus a coarser material is useful for producing deeper contrast.
Newsprint and typing paper may be useful for practice and rough sketches. Tracing paper is used to experiment over a half-finished drawing, and to transfer a design from one sheet to another. Cartridge paper is the basic type of drawing paper sold in pads. Bristol board and even heavier acid-free boards, frequently with smooth finishes, are used for drawing fine detail and do not distort when wet media (ink, washes) are applied. Vellum is extremely smooth and suitable for very fine detail. Coldpressed watercolor paper may be favored for ink drawing due to its texture.
Acid-free, archival quality paper keeps its color and texture far longer than wood pulp based paper such as newsprint, which turns yellow and become brittle much sooner.
The basic tools are a drawing board or table, pencil sharpener and eraser, and for ink drawing, blotting paper. Other tools used are circle compass, ruler, and set square. Fixative is used to prevent pencil and crayon marks from smudging. Drafting tape is used to secure paper to drawing surface, and also to mask an area to keep it free of accidental marks sprayed or spattered materials and washes. An easel or slanted table is used to keep the drawing surface in a suitable position, which is generally more horizontal than the position used in painting.
Technique[edit]
Raphael, study for what became the Alba Madonna, with other sketches
Almost all draftsmen use their hands and fingers to apply the media, with the exception of some handicapped individuals who draw with their mouth or feet.[22]
Prior to working on an image, the artist typically explores how various media work. They may try different drawing implements on practice sheets to determine value and texture, and how to apply the implement to produce various effects.
The artist's choice of drawing strokes affects the appearance of the image. Pen and ink drawings often use hatching—groups of parallel lines.[23] Cross-hatching uses hatching in two or more different directions to create a darker tone. Broken hatching, or lines with intermittent breaks, form lighter tones—and controlling the density of the breaks achieves a gradation of tone. Stippling, uses dots to produce tone, texture or shade. Different textures can be achieved depending on the method used to build tone.[24]
Drawings in dry media often use similar techniques, though pencils and drawing sticks can achieve continuous variations in tone. Typically a drawing is filled in based on which hand the artist favors. A right-handed artist draws from left to right to avoid smearing the image. Erasers can remove unwanted lines, lighten tones, and clean up stray marks. In a sketch or outline drawing, lines drawn often follow the contour of the subject, creating depth by looking like shadows cast from a light in the artist's position.
Sometimes the artist leaves a section of the image untouched while filling in the remainder. The shape of the area to preserve can be painted with masking fluid or cut out of a frisket and applied to the drawing surface, protecting the surface from stray marks until the mask is removed.
Another method to preserve a section of the image is to apply a spray-on fixative to the surface. This holds loose material more firmly to the sheet and prevents it from smearing. However the fixative spray typically uses chemicals that can harm the respiratory system, so it should be employed in a well-ventilated area such as outdoors.
Another technique is subtractive drawing in which the drawing surface is covered with graphite or charcoal and then erased to make the image.[25]
Tone[edit]
Line drawing in sanguine by Leonardo da Vinci
Shading is the technique of varying the tonal values on the paper to represent the shade of the material as well as the placement of the shadows. Careful attention to reflected light, shadows and highlights can result in a very realistic rendition of the image.
Blending uses an implement to soften or spread the original drawing strokes. Blending is most easily done with a medium that does not immediately fix itself, such as graphite, chalk, or charcoal, although freshly applied ink can be smudged, wet or dry, for some effects. For shading and blending, the artist can use a blending stump, tissue, a kneaded eraser, a fingertip, or any combination of them. A piece of chamois is useful for creating smooth textures, and for removing material to lighten the tone. Continuous tone can be achieved with graphite on a smooth surface without blending, but the technique is laborious, involving small circular or oval strokes with a somewhat blunt point.
Shading techniques that also introduce texture to the drawing include hatching and stippling. A number of other methods produce texture. In addition to the choice of paper, drawing material and technique affect texture. Texture can be made to appear more realistic when it is drawn next to a contrasting texture; a coarse texture is more obvious when placed next to a smoothly blended area. A similar effect can be achieved by drawing different tones close together. A light edge next to a dark background stands out to the eye, and almost appears to float above the surface.
Form and proportion[edit]
Pencil portrait by Ingres
Measuring the dimensions of a subject while blocking in the drawing is an important step in producing a realistic rendition of the subject. Tools such as a compass can be used to measure the angles of different sides. These angles can be reproduced on the drawing surface and then rechecked to make sure they are accurate. Another form of measurement is to compare the relative sizes of different parts of the subject with each other. A finger placed at a point along the drawing implement can be used to compare that dimension with other parts of the image. A ruler can be used both as a straightedge and a device to compute proportions.
When attempting to draw a complicated shape such as a human figure, it is helpful at first to represent the form with a set of primitive volumes. Almost any form can be represented by some combination of the cube, sphere, cylinder, and cone. Once these basic volumes have been assembled into a likeness, then the drawing can be refined into a more accurate and polished form. The lines of the primitive volumes are removed and replaced by the final likeness. Drawing the underlying construction is a fundamental skill for representational art, and is taught in many books and schools. Its correct application resolves most uncertainties about smaller details, and makes the final image look consistent.[26]
A more refined art of figure drawing relies upon the artist possessing a deep understanding of anatomy and the human proportions. A trained artist is familiar with the skeleton structure, joint location, muscle placement, tendon movement, and how the different parts work together during movement. This allows the artist to render more natural poses that do not appear artificially stiff. The artist is also familiar with how the proportions vary depending on the age of the subject, particularly when drawing a portrait.
Perspective[edit]
Linear perspective is a method of portraying objects on a flat surface so that the dimensions shrink with distance. Each set of parallel, straight edges of any object, whether a building or a table, follows lines that eventually converge at a vanishing point. Typically this convergence point is somewhere along the horizon, as buildings are built level with the flat surface. When multiple structures are aligned with each other, such as buildings along a street, the horizontal tops and bottoms of the structures typically converge at a vanishing point.
Two-point perspective drawing
When both the fronts and sides of a building are drawn, then the parallel lines forming a side converge at a second point along the horizon (which may be off the drawing paper.) This is a two-point perspective.[27] Converging the vertical lines to a third point above or below the horizon then produces a three-point perspective.
Depth can also be portrayed by several techniques in addition to the perspective approach above. Objects of similar size should appear ever smaller the further they are from the viewer. Thus the back wheel of a cart appears slightly smaller than the front wheel. Depth can be portrayed through the use of texture. As the texture of an object gets further away it becomes more compressed and busy, taking on an entirely different character than if it was close. Depth can also be portrayed by reducing the contrast in more distant objects, and by making their colors less saturated. This reproduces the effect of atmospheric haze, and cause the eye to focus primarily on objects drawn in the foreground.
Artistry[edit]
Chiaroscuro study drawing by William-Adolphe Bouguereau
The composition of the image is an important element in producing an interesting work of artistic merit. The artist plans element placement in the art to communicate ideas and feelings with the viewer. The composition can determine the focus of the art, and result in a harmonious whole that is aesthetically appealing and stimulating.
The illumination of the subject is also a key element in creating an artistic piece, and the interplay of light and shadow is a valuable method in the artist's toolbox. The placement of the light sources can make a considerable difference in the type of message that is being presented. Multiple light sources can wash out any wrinkles in a person's face, for instance, and give a more youthful appearance. In contrast, a single light source, such as harsh daylight, can serve to highlight any texture or interesting features.
When drawing an object or figure, the skilled artist pays attention to both the area within the silhouette and what lies outside. The exterior is termed the negative space, and can be as important in the representation as the figure. Objects placed in the background of the figure should appear properly placed wherever they can be viewed.
Drawing process in the Academic Study of a Male Torso by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1801, National Museum, Warsaw)
A study is a draft drawing that is made in preparation for a planned final image. Studies can be used to determine the appearances of specific parts of the completed image, or for experimenting with the best approach for accomplishing the end goal. However a well-crafted study can be a piece of art in its own right, and many hours of careful work can go into completing a study.
Process[edit]
Individuals display differences in their ability to produce visually accurate drawings.[28] A visually accurate drawing is described as being "recognized as a particular object at a particular time and in a particular space, rendered with little addition of visual detail that can not be seen in the object represented or with little deletion of visual detail”.[29]
Investigative studies have aimed to explain the reasons why some individuals draw better than others. One study posited four key abilities in the drawing process: perception of objects being drawn, ability to make good representational decisions, motor skills required for mark-making and the drawer's own perception of their drawing.[29] Following this hypothesis, several studies have sought to conclude which of these processes are most significant in affecting the accuracy of drawings.
Motor function Motor function is an important physical component in the 'Production Phase' of the drawing process.[30] It has been suggested that motor function plays a role in drawing ability, though its effects are not significant.[29]
Perception It has been suggested that an individual's ability to perceive an object they are drawing is the most important stage in the drawing process.[29] This suggestion is supported by the discovery of a robust relationship between perception and drawing ability.[31]
This evidence acted as the basis of Betty Edwards' how-to drawing book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.[32] Edwards aimed to teach her readers how to draw, based on the development of the reader's perceptual abilities.
Furthermore, the influential artist and art critic John Ruskin emphasised the importance of perception in the drawing process in his book The Elements of Drawing.[33] He stated that "For I am nearly convinced, that once we see keenly enough, there is very little difficult in drawing what we see".
Visual memory has also been shown to influence one's ability to create visually accurate drawings. Short-term memory plays an important part in drawing as one’s gaze shifts between the object they are drawing and the drawing itself.[34]
Was feeling a little down yesterday. I can't stand being home confined in a house. I'm really a private person with my life. But I'm a people person. I love all the daily personal interactions l get going to store. Talking to the attendent at the gas station. Just seeing familiar faces at the gym. Talking to the boys on the jobs. Their life's. Their wife's. Their cars. Their everything.
Construction is a life of partime friendships. You are at war, not as in fighting, but as always working hard to achieve a victory.
( Building constructed ) And for one or two years you see people regular and you bond and you care and they care.......... And then the job is done........ And you may never see them again, or you might see them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years later. And it seems like yesterday again. But the kids are in highschool. The parents have retired. They bought a new house with crappy neighbors......
And although I'm pretty private about my life. I guess l am a people person.
And l miss. And it's eating at me.
Soooooooooooo. Sandra noticed me moping periodically. Sandra notices everything. Told you. She would have been a great mother.
And l was complaining.
So she gave me an early Christmas present. She said all girls have stuffed animals to talk to when they're mad or sad or lonely. That l needed my very own. She said it's a stuffed animal version of Mr. Biscuits.
Well......... He's the cutest little man....... And she said l needed to give him a name to make him hear me............ So....... I would like you all to meet my very own buddle of joy. JoJo. He left his home in Tucson Arizona and bought some California grass. Get back JoJo....🎶🎵🎶🎵🎶🎵♥️🐒🌹
+++ 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-62 (Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka = anti-aircraft self-propelled mount) was a potential successor for the Soviet ZSU-57-2 SPAAG, developed in parallel with the ZSU-23-4. But unlike its brethren, the ZSU-62 was only produced in limited numbers, but it received limited fame during its late operational second-line career when it was successfully deployed to Afghanistan.
The ZSU’62’s roots were laid down just after WWII with the ZSU-57-2. The first prototype (Objekt 500) was completed in the summer of 1950, production began in 1955. The vehicle was built using a modified chassis of the new T-54 tank and was armed with two S-68 57 mm cannons – at the time the most powerful guns mounted in an anti-aircraft system. The modification of the chassis included reducing the road wheels per side to four and using lighter armor. The ZSU-57-2 was powered by a V-54 12-cylinder diesel engine providing 520 hp. Despite the weight of 28 tons, thanks to the strong engine, the maximum speed was 50 km/h. With a fuel load of 850 liters, the operational range was 420 km.
Each cannon had a (theoretical) rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s. Maximum horizontal range was 12 km (with an effective range against ground targets of up to 4 km / 2.5 miles), maximum vertical range was 8.8 km (with a maximum effective vertical range of 4.5 km / 14,750 ft). The effective range, when used against flying targets, was 6 km. Armor-piercing rounds were able to penetrate 110 mm armor at 500 m or 70 mm armor at 2,000 m (at 90° impact angle).
Rate of fire was 120 RPM, but this was only a theoretical number, because each gun was fed with separate four-shot magazines so that only bursts and no continuous fire was possible. Both fragmentation and armor-piercing ammunition were available. The ZSU-57-2’s total ammunition load was 300 rounds, with 176 rounds being stored inside the turret and the remaining in the hull. To efficiently operate the vehicle, six crew members were needed: commander, gunner, loader, driver, and two sight adjusters.
The ZSU-57-2 had serious firepower that could easily destroy any aerial target but had many issues. The greatest weaknesses were the lack of modern range-finding and radar equipment, the impossibility of engaging targets at night or while on the move, the lack of protection for its crew (being open-topped), and low ammunition count. Nevertheless, more than 2.000 ZSU-57-2s were eventually built. While many would be sold to other Warsaw Pact countries, like East Germany, Romania, and Poland, its service within the Soviet Army was limited, because of its many operational deficiencies.
This led in 1957 to a new SPAAG program for the Soviet Army and initiated the development of the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka", the ZSU-37-2 "Yenisei" and a new ZSU-57-2 “Kama” (all baptized after Russian rivers) with the outlook to replace the original ZSU-57-2 by the mid to late Sixties. These vehicles were intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. “Shilka” was intended for close range defense (esp. against low-flying attack helicopters) while the more powerful guns of "Yenisei" and “Kama” were judged to be effective at covering the inner dead-zone of Soviet surface-to-air missile systems between 1.000 and 6.000 m altitude, with a focus on attack aircraft and more heavily armored targets.
All designs were based on existing tracked chassis’ and featured completely enclosed turrets as well as a proven radar system, the RPK-2 "Tobol" radar (NATO designator: "Gun Dish"). The ZSU-37-2 was soon dropped in favor of the higher firepower and range of the 57mm guns, so that both “Shilka” and “Kama” entered the hardware stage at Omsk Works No. 174.
However, “Kama” lagged behind the “Shilka” development because several technical and conceptual problems had to be solved. For instance, even though the armament still consisted of two proven S-68 cannon, the weapons’ mount had to be developed new to fit into the enclosed cast turret. To save space, both weapons were now mounted directly side-by-side. Their feeding system was furthermore changed from magazines to belts, what considerably improved the SPAAG’s firepower and now allowed continuous fire at a higher rate of fire of 150 RPM per gun. For sufficient flexibility, a belt-switching mechanism allowed to choose between two different ammunition supplies: each gun had supplies of 220 and 35 rounds, normally occupied with HE fragmentation and armor-piercing tracer (AP-T) shells, respectively, against aerial and armored ground targets. Changing between the two feeds just took a couple of seconds.
The twin S-68s were recoil-operated and the whole mount (without feeding mechanism) weighed 4,500 kg. The guns had a recoil of between 325 and 370 mm, and each air-cooled gun barrel, fitted with a muzzle brake, was 4365 mm long (76.6 calibers). The weapons could be elevated or depressed between −5° and +80° at a speed of between 0.3° and 32° per second, while the turret could traverse 360° at a speed of between 0.2° and 52° per second. Drive was from a direct current electric motor and universal hydraulic speed gears.
The “Kama” crew numbered four: driver (in the hull), commander, gunner and radar operator (all in the turret). The heavy guns, their ammunition supply and the radar system had to be housed in a turret, together with decent armor, and this resulted in a considerable volume and weight (a single 57 mm projectile alone already weighed 2.8 kg). Several layouts were tested, but weight and volume of the systems made it impossible to mate the “Kama” turret on the T-54/55 chassis, which was available in ample numbers for conversions. The limiting factor was the T-54/55’s relatively small turret bearing diameter.
To solve this problem, the “Kama” designers chose the more modern T-62 as chassis basis. It was outwardly very similar to the former T-54/55, but it featured a 2245 mm turret ring (250 mm more than the T-54/55’s bearing) that was able to take a much bigger/wider/heavier turret than its predecessor. Furthermore, the T-62 represented the Soviet Army’s “state of the art”. The choice of the T-62 ensured many component and maintenance communalities with the operational MBT and it also meant that the “Kama” SPAAG could operate in the same environment and the same pace as the T-62. In order to save costs and development time, the T-62 chassis was taken “as is”, with the same engine and armor level as the MBT. There were only minor changes in the electric components, e. g. a more powerful generator for the radar system.
In this combination, “Kama” eventually entered tests and state acceptance trials as “Object 503”. During these tests, some final changes to layout and equipment were made; for instance, the RPK-2’s dish-shaped radome received a retractable mount that allowed the antenna to be raised higher above the turret in order to avoid clutter and to protect the antenna when the vehicle was on the move.
The tests lasted until 1963 and were successful, so that an initial batch of 100 serial production tanks was ordered the same year. In order to avoid confusion with the old ZSU-57-2 from 1955, the new tank with the same armament was pragmatically designated ZSU-62.
Alas, while production of the “Kama” turrets ran up to be mated with T-62 hulls at the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil, the ZSU-62’s future had already been sealed by the fast pace of technical developments: in the meantime MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) had taken the medium-range SPAAG’s place and a foot soldier could now fulfill the same mission as an expensive and bulky 40 ton tank, so that the medium range/altitude gap between the ZSU-23-4 (which had already entered service) and heavier surface-to-air missile systems would not be filled with a dedicated vehicle anymore. The ZSU-62 had become superfluous the moment it had reached the first frontline units, and large-scale production was immediately stopped.
However, the initial production run was nevertheless completed until 1967, and the ZSU-62s were primarily sent to training units, where the vehicles were – due to their turrets’ shape – nicknamed “черепаха“ (turtle).
This could have been the ZSU-62’s fate, but the Soviet Union’s intervention in Afghanistan brought it back into frontline service. Since December 1978, the Afghan government called on Soviet forces, which were introduced in the spring and summer of 1979 to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujaheddin rebels. After the killing of Soviet technicians in Herat by rioting mobs, the Soviet government sold several Mi-24 helicopters to the Afghan military and increased the number of military advisers in the country to 3,000. In April 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion arrived at the Bagram Air Base on July 7, and ground forces were deployed from Turkmenistan territory into northern Afghanistan, securing the supply lines.
Experience in the mountainous Afghan landscape soon made the shortcomings of standard MBTs apparent, namely their lack of gun elevation, esp. when attacking hideouts and posts in high locations. While the ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” was readily available and used against such targets, it lacked range and firepower to take out protected posts at distances more than 2.000 m away. This led to the decision to send roundabout 40 ZSU-62s to the Afghan theatre of operations, where they were primarily used against ground targets – both fortifications as well as armored and unarmored vehicles. The weapons’ precision and range proved to be valuable assets, with devastating effect, and the vehicles remained in active service until 1985 when their role was more and more taken over by helicopters and aircraft like the new Su-25. The ZSU-62 were, nevertheless, still employed for aerial airfield defense and as a deterrent against ground attacks.
With the USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988 and 1989, the last operational ZSU-62s were retired. In the training units, the vehicles had already been replaced by ZSU-23-4s by 1984.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, radar operator, driver)
Weight: 37 t (41 short tons; 36 long tons)
Length: 6.63 m (21 ft 9 in) hull only
9.22 m (30 ft 3½ in) with barrel in forward position
Width: 3.30 m (10 ft 10 in)
Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) with search radar fully extended,
2.84 m (9 ft 3¾ in) with search radar stowed
Suspension: Torsion bar
Ground clearance: 425 mm (16.7 in)
Fuel capacity: 960 l
Armor:
20 mm (hull bottom) – 102 mm (hull front)
Performance:
Speed: 50 km/h (31 mph) on roads,
40 km/h (25 mph) cross country)
Range: 450 km (280 mi) on road;
650 km (400 mi) with two 200 l (53 US gal; 44 imp gal) extra fuel tanks;
320 km (200 mi) cross-country
450 km (280 mi) with two 200-liter extra fuel tanks
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: 14.5 hp/tonne (10.8 kW/tonne)
Engine:
1x V-55 12-cylinder 4-stroke one-chamber 38.88 liter water-cooled diesel engine
with 581 hp (433 kW) at 2,000 rpm
Transmission:
Hydromechanical
Armament:
2× S-68 57mm (1.5 in) cannon with 255 rounds each
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional tank model came to be as a classic what-if, based on the question “what could have been a successor of the Soviet ZSU-57-2 SPAAG?”. Not an existential question that comes to your mind frequently, but it made me wonder – also because the real-world successor, the ZSU-23-4 “Shilka”, lacked the ZSU-57-2’s range and large-caliber firepower.
From this conceptual basis I decided to retain the 57mm twin guns, add an RPK-2 radar and mount these into a fully enclosed turret. The latter became a leftover M48 turret, which was suitably bulky, and the gun mount was taken from a Modelcollect E-75 SPAAG. However, both were heavily modified: the gun mount lost its boxy armor protection, just the brass barrels and the joint at the base were retained, the rest was scratched from styrene bits and wire. To accept the much taller weapon mount, the turret front had to be re-sculpted with putty, resulting in a boxier shape with steeper side walls – but the whole affair looks very organic. A simpler commander cupola was used and the whole radar dish arrangement on the rear roof was scratched, too.
The hull came from a Trumpeter T-62, just for the reasons explained in the background: the T-54/55 had a relatively small turret ring, and this caused severe development problems, because the MBT could not take a bigger turret and with it a more powerful cannon. Since this SPAAG would have been developed a couple of years later than the T-54/55, its successor, the T-62, appeared logical, and the “marriage” with the M48 turret worked like a charm. Even the turret’s adapter had the same diameter as the hull opening, I just had to modify the notches that hold it in place! The hull itself remained unmodified.
Painting and markings:
I wanted to place this SPAAG into the Afghanistan theatre of operations, and this was historically not very easy since I had to bridge some fifteen years of service to make this idea work. However, I found a story for the background, and the model received an appropriate paint scheme, based on real world vehicles around 1980 (actually from a BMP-1 operated in northern Afghanistan).
The camouflage consists of three tones, a pale/greyish sand, an olive drab tone and some contrasts in a dark, dull brown – it reminds of the US Army’s more complex MERDC scheme. The paints became Humbrol 167 (Hemp), Tamiya XF-62 (Olive Drab) and Humbrol 98 (Chocolate), even though the green appears darker than expected due to the high contrast with the sand tone.
The model received an overall washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint, and some dry-brushing with cream, faded olive drab and light grey. The few markings/decals were taken from the T-62 kit, and everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish before the lower areas were finally dusted with a greyish-sand brown mix of artist pigments, simulating dust.
A plausible result, even though a cast turret might not appear to be a natural choice for a SPAAG? But the AMX-30 SPAAG from 1969 had a very similar design and there was a German prototype called “MATADOR” (a Gepard forerunner from 1968) that had a turret of similar shape, too. However, the kitbashed/scratched turret looks really good and convincing, and the T-62 hull is a great match for it in shape, size and timeframe. The ZSU-62 turned out way better than hoped for! :D
+++ 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 Russian Civil War (Russian: Гражданская война в России, tr. Grazhdanskaya voyna v Rossii) was a multi-party civil war in the former Russian Empire immediately after the two Russian revolutions of 1917, as many factions vied to determine Russia's political future. The two largest combatant groups were the Red Army, fighting for the Bolshevik form of socialism led by Vladimir Lenin, and the loosely allied forces known as the White Army, which included diverse interests favoring political monarchism, capitalism and social democracy, each with democratic and anti-democratic variants. In addition, rival militant socialists, notably Makhnovia anarchists and Left SRs, as well as non-ideological Green armies, fought against both the Reds and the Whites.
Thirteen foreign nations intervened against the Red Army, notably the former Allied military forces from the World War with the goal of re-establishing the Eastern Front, and a wide variety of leftover WWI material was transferred. Three foreign nations of the Central Powers also intervened, rivaling the Allied intervention with the main goal of retaining the territory they had received in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
After the revolution the Bolsheviks swept through Russia nearly unopposed. The republic had collapsed after the Soviets were given all political power, leaving no solid resistance to the Reds. In May 1918, the Czech Legion in Russia revolted in Siberia. Reacting to this, the Allies began an intervention in Northern Russia and Siberia. This, combined with the creation of the Provisional All-Russian Government, saw the reduction of the Bolsheviks to most of European Russia and parts of Central Asia. In November, Alexander Kolchak launched a coup to take control of the Russian State, establishing a de facto military dictatorship.
The White Army launched several attacks from the East in March, the South in July, and West in October 1919. One of the hotspots during this period became Estonia and the Petrograd (Saint Petersburg) region. Estonia had cleared its territory of the Red Army by January 1919. Baltic German volunteers captured Riga from the Red Latvian Riflemen on 22 May, but the Estonian 3rd Division defeated the Baltic Germans a month later, aiding the establishment of the Republic of Latvia. This rendered possible another threat to the Red Army—one from Gen. Yudenich, who had spent the summer organizing the Northwestern Army in Estonia with local and British support. In October 1919 he tried to capture Petrograd in a sudden assault with a force of around 20,000 men. The attack was well-executed, using night attacks and lightning cavalry maneuvers to turn the flanks of the defending Red Army. The Allies gave large quantities of aid to Yudenich, who, however, complained that he was receiving insufficient support. This support even included a mixed bag of six former British tanks, including at least one “male” Mark I tank from 1915 and several modern Mark Vs. They caused panic whenever they appeared, since no tank had been available or even developed in Russia at that time, but due to their small number they had rather a propagandistic effect than actual battle impact.
By 19 October Yudenich's troops had reached the outskirts of the city. Some members of the Bolshevik central committee in Moscow were willing to give up Petrograd, but Trotsky refused to accept the loss of the city and personally organized its defenses. Trotsky himself declared, "It is impossible for a little army of 15,000 ex-officers to master a working-class capital of 700,000 inhabitants." He settled on a strategy of urban defense, proclaiming that the city would "defend itself on its own ground" and that the White Army would be lost in a labyrinth of fortified streets and there "meet its grave".
Trotsky armed all available workers, men and women, ordering the transfer of military forces from Moscow. Within a few weeks the Red Army defending Petrograd had tripled in size and outnumbered Yudenich three to one. At this point Yudenich, short of supplies, decided to call off the siege of the city and withdrew, repeatedly asking permission to withdraw his army across the border to Estonia. All tanks were abandoned and were quickly pressed into red Army service, sporting huge Red Stars. But, again, their warfare value was rather symbolic and one of these captured tanks (a Mark V “hermaphrodite” is still existing as an exhibit at the Kubinka Tank Museum in Moscow, carrying its post-capture livery.
Units retreating across the border were disarmed and interned by order of the Estonian government, which had entered into peace negotiations with the Soviet Government on 16 September and had been informed by the Soviet authorities of their 6 November decision that, should the White Army be allowed to retreat into Estonia, it would be pursued across the border by the Reds. In fact, the Reds attacked Estonian army positions and fighting continued until a cease-fire went into effect on 3 January 1920. Following the Treaty of Tartu, most of Yudenich's soldiers went into exile. Former Imperial Russian and then Finnish Gen. Mannerheim planned an intervention to help the Whites in Russia capture Petrograd. However, he did not gain the necessary support for the endeavor. Lenin considered it "completely certain, that the slightest aid from Finland would have determined the fate of [the city]".
Specifications:
Crew: 8 (commander/brakesman, driver, two gearsmen and four gunners)
Weight: 28 long tons (28 t)
Length: 32 ft 6 in (9.91 m) with tail
25 ft 5 in (7.75 m) without
Width: 13 ft 9 in (4.19 m)
Height: 8 ft 2 in (2.49 m)
Fuel capacity: 50 imperial gallons (230 l; 60 US gal)
Suspension: none (26 unsprung rollers)
Armor:
0.24–0.47 in (6–12 mm)
Performance:
Speed: 3.7 mph (6.0 km/h) maximum on even ground
Operational range: 23.6 miles (38.0 km) radius of action, 6.2 hours endurance
Power/weight: 3.7 PS/tonne (2.7 kW/ton)
Engine:
1× Daimler-Knight 6-cylinder sleeve-valve 16-litre petrol engine with 105 hp (78 kW)
Transmission:
Primary gearbox: 2 forward and 1 reverse
Secondary :2 speeds
Armament:
2× Hotchkiss 6 pdr QF gun
3× 7.92 mm Vickers or Hotchkiss air-cooled machine guns
The kit and its assembly:
This became a late/spontaneous entry to the “Captured” group build at whgatifmodellers.com in early 2021, after a deadline extension had been announced. The trigger was a picture of the aforementioned former captured White Army Mark V tank from the Kubinka Tank Museum, which carries a garish (but apparently authentic) livery in bright green and a greenish black, together with prominent Red Stars. I found the paint scheme cool and remembered an Airfix kit of a rhomboid WWI tank in my stash. This turned out to be a male Mark I, advertised as being 1:72, but, in reality, it is a 1:76/00 scale model.
However, the occasion was good to build it, and I started on short notice. I did some legwork and found out that six former British tanks had been delivered to the White Army in Estonia, as described above, and one of them could have been an early Mark I that had not been converted into a transport tank yet, replaced by more modern Marks.
As such the model was built OOB, a very simple affair but with surprisingly good fit and IMHO good surface details. In this case, rivets make sense! :D
The real trouble started on the finish line, when I tried to mount the vinyl tracks. This turned out to be total horror and almost ruined the build. Not only are the tracks markedly too short, by about 5mm, the material is furthermore pretty stiff and felt brittle and unevenly injected, so that I did not dare to stretch the parts for a proper fit. Mounting was furthermore hampered by the tracks’ thickness – bending them around the idler wheels called for calculated force, with imminent risk of breaking, and sticking the PVC tracks to the hull with some kind of glue also escalated. Not only did it take half a tube of superglue to attach them with a snug fit, one track eventually broke during the overnight curing phase, just on a front idler wheel… I was about to trash the model, but in a desperate attempt to save the situation I tried to bend/shape the broken section with heat, glued it into place with even more superglue and bridged the resulting gap (what I also did with the general 5mm gap, just on the underside). While the whole solution is not as pretty as I had hoped for, it’s O.K.
The trailer was kept, even though the White or later Red tanks would not have needed it for better off-road steering – but since the trailer can be raised (a common practice when moving on a street or level, hard ground), I kept it. The only personal modification is an air-cooled machine gun in the front port (left over from a WWI biplane kit) and an open hatch in the “commando bridge” with a 1:76 figure. This is actually a French soldier (from a Matchbox Char B1/FT-17 kit set), slightly modified and with a flag in one hand instead of a rifle – for a patriotic touch.
Painting and markings:
The Kubinka Mark V became the design benchmark, so that the model received a disruptive two-tone scheme consisting of Revell 360 (Fern Green, the “real” tone is even brighter!) and Humbrol 108 (WWI Green, appears a bit brownish in direct contrast with the Fern Green, 66 might have been a better choice?).
The few markings of the tank come from various sources: the Red Stars belong to a Soviet WWII Lend-Lease P-40E, the “02” is actually a “20” and comes from a Soviet T-34/76.
The model was thoroughly weathered in multiple stages, including a black ink washing, dry-brushing, treatment with water colors and finally mineral artist pigments, before a coat of matt acrylic varnish was applied.
The whole build went very quickly, hardware was done in just two days, but the track issues added two more painful days , which, on the other side, were used for the finish. The whole thing look pretty convincing – but it remains close to its real-world benchmark, so that the fictional element of this what-if model is rather small. But the paint scheme still looks cool, and so different from the typical British rhomboid tank liveries from WWI. :D
Ganhei da Elô esta máscara fofinha, com cheirinho delicioso e topinho de renda, além de um chá de hibisco muito gostoso. Da Lu Gastal, veio este tecido maravilhoso.Já sabem que adorei, né? muuuuuuito obrigada !!!Tô trabalhando, meninas, trabalhando...
Shown here is an image of Case 1 of the "'The Inevitable Present': Integration at William & Mary" Exhibit located in the Marshall Gallery (1st Floor Rotunda) and the Read & Relax area of Swem Library at the College of William & Mary, on display from February 4th 2013 to August 13th 2013
The following is a transcription of the labels in this case:
In late 1950, the Dean of the Department of Jurisprudence, Dudley W. Woodbridge reinforced the statements of the Board of Visitors and the Alumni Gazette when he told a meeting of the Norfolk and Portsmouth Bar Association that William & Mary would accept African American applicants.
Edward Augustus Travis was the first African American law student at William & Mary entering in the 1951 fall semester and graduating in August 1954 with a BCL degree, making him the first African American alumnus of William & Mary. Travis, born in Reed’s Ferry, Virginia, had attended Hampton Institute and graduated from Florida A&M before applying to William & Mary. Travis passed away in Newport News in November 1960.
While William & Mary had cracked open a door to integration, other battles continued throughout the nation, including in Washington, D.C. The Coordinating Committee for the Enforcement of the D.C. Anti-Discrimination Laws sent this flyer to William & Mary president Alvin Duke Chandler asking him to share the group’s boycott of department store Hecht’s with students. There is no indication in the records of the Office of the President if Chandler shared this information with students or others.
Hulon Willis was the first African American student admitted to William & Mary. He began in the summer 1951 term, pursuing his masters of education. At the time of his admision, Willis was already a graduate of Virginia State College (now Virginia State University) and a teacher in the Norfolk school system. He earned his degree from William & Mary in August 1956. The William & Mary Alumni Association’s Hulon Willis Association, a constituent group founded in 1992 by and for African American alumni, was named in honor of Willis, preserving his name and place in the university’s history for the future.
As a graduate student, Willis naturally had a different experience on campus than today’s undergraduate students. During the summers when he was attending classes, Willis lived on Braxton Court in a boarding house operated by Miss Gwen Skinner. When they attended football games at William & Mary, Hulon & Alyce Willis sat in the student section, not in the end zone where other African Americans were seated in the segregated stadium. When Willis was inducted into Kappa Delta Pi, an education honor society, according to Mrs. Willis another member told the group that he would be not be a part of an organization that admitted an African American. The group told this member he could leave and Willis was inducted in August 1956. As an alumnus, Willis joined the Order of the White Jacket, an Alumni Association constituent group for those who worked in campus dining halls, Colonial Williamsburg restaurants, and other dining establishments. After earning his graduate degree, Willis became an assistant professor at Virginia State University and then the director of campus police.
Like all students applying to William & Mary at the time, Willis was required to include a photograph of himself with his application. In a 2005 oral history interview with Jenay Jackson ’05, Hulon Willis’ wife Alyce, who had encouraged her husband to apply to William & Mary, recounted that upon receiving his acceptance letter in March 1951, she wondered if the photograph had fallen off his application. But a few weeks later, William & Mary released a public statement, announcing that Willis was the first African American student admitted to the institution. Willis was accepted not because the institution was opening its doors to all potential African American students, but because of the case brought by Gregory Swanson against the University of Virginia in 1950 after he was denied admission to the university’s School of Law. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Swanson could not be barred from admission because of his race. Willis was pursuing his master’s degree specializing in physical education and since that program of study was not offered by a state-supported institution accepting African American applicants, William & Mary could not decline to admit Willis based solely on his race. The college established a procedure to confer with Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond, Jr. in Richmond on the admission of African American applicants beginning in the 1950s. William & Mary specifically wished to avoid a court case, while some, like A. W. Bohannan, who wrote to President Pomfret in May 1951 after Hulon Willis’ admission, saw forcing applicants to take the institution to court as the next step in preventing integration.
New Journal and Guide, 28 August 1954
This article is available through the ProQuest Historical Newspapers database at
proxy.wm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview...
William & Mary’s first non-white undergraduate student was Art Matsu, ’28. Born to a Scottish mother and Japanese father, Matsu was an exceptional athlete who was successfully recruited from Cleveland by William & Mary to play quarterback and became captain of the football team. He also played basketball, baseball, ran track, became a member of the 13 Club and the Varsity Club, and took part in other student activities. But Matsu's attendance did not open the door widely to Asian American students. William & Mary’s student body would include only a handful of Asian and Asian American students throughout the 1930s-1950s.
The Colonial Echo, William & Mary’s yearbook, has been digitized by Swem Library and all volumes from 1899-1995 are available from the W&M Digital Archive at digitalarchive.wm.edu/colonialecho/.
Searching for a specific yearbook?
Contact Swem Library’s Special Collections Research Center at spcoll@wm.edu or 757-221-3090 to inquire if copies from your William & Mary years are available.
William & Mary admitted its first African American students under President John E. Pomfret. Pomfret would depart William & Mary soon after Willis and Travis were admitted due to the unrelated football scandal of 1951. He was replaced by former admiral Alvin Duke Chandler who was new to academia.
Correspondence, internal memos, and other materials relating to integration were filed by the Office of the President in the 1950s-1960s under the heading “Negro Education.” After being transferred to the University Archives, these folder titles were maintained to document the organization and practices of the office and the era.
You can both listen to and read Alyce Willis’ 2005 oral history interview at hdl.handle.net/10288/600.
The Swem Library and William & Mary’s Lemon Project conduct oral history interviews to document the stories and lives of college alumni, faculty, and staff. To volunteer, contact Swem Library’s Special Collections Research Center at spcoll@wm.edu or 757-221-3090.
Center for Student Diversity Records, UA 260,
Series 1: Office of Minority Student Affairs
Read more of The Black Presence at William and Mary at hdl.handle.net/10288/16118
The Flat Hat, 1 May 1951.
The Flat Hat student newspaper, first published in 1911, was digitized by Swem Library and is available from the W&M Digital Archive at digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/20
Jacqueline Filzen’s 2012 Charles Center Summer Research paper “African Americans at the College of William and Mary from 1950-1970” offers further information on this subject and provided much useful material for this exhibit. The paper can be read at hdl.handle.net/10288/17049
From the Special Collections Research Center, Earl Gregg Swem Library at the College of William and Mary. See swem.wm.edu/research/special-collections for further information and assistance.
Just a present for Lindee and Maura.
Ponte Vecchio - Florence - Italy
All rights reserved - Copyright © Matteo Campinoti
All images are exclusive property and may not be copied, downloaded, reproduced, transmitted, manipulated or used in any way without expressed, written permission of the photographer.
2008_03_18_DSC_2721x4
Traditio legis
Christ presenting the keys to Saint Peter & the law to Saint Paul
ivory [1150-1200] Westfalen, Germany
NYC The Cloisters collection 1979.399
Christ Giving the Keys to Peter and the Law to Paul (traditio clavis et legis) became an established theme in art in fourth-century Rome in order to emphasize the primacy of Peter and the importance of Paul. Early depictions of the subject are usually monumental in scale, as, for example, when they served as apse decorations, but occasionally, in the later medieval period, the event is represented in ivory. A significant departure from traditional depictions of this scene is the absence of the rock upon which Christ usually stands, which, here, has been replaced by a domed and arcaded rotunda, a vivid evocation of the church.
Source:
www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search...
BRAINTREE -- Cardinal Seán P. O'Malley presented 116 Cheverus Award Medals to laypersons, deacons and religious during a 3 p.m. Vespers service yesterday on the Feast of Christ the King, at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston's South End.
First presented in 2008 at the celebration to mark the conclusion of the archdiocese's bicentennial year, the annual award recognizes Catholics for their dedicated service to the Church. The medal is named for the archdiocese's first bishop, Jean-Louis Lefebvre de Cheverus, who led the diocese from 1808 until his return to France in 1824. Bishop Cheverus died in 1836 as the Archbishop of Bordeaux.
The oval-shaped medal is made of sterling silver and bears a likeness of Bishop Cheverus based on the Gilbert Stuart portrait. On the reverse side is Bishop Cheverus' coat of arms.
The medal recipients are chosen for their service to the Church and God's people. Most recipients are nominated by their pastor, forwarded by their area vicar and approved by their regional bishop and Cardinal O'Malley. Some recipients are personally selected by Cardinal O'Malley.
Each year, one-third of the parishes of the archdiocese are asked to nominate a parishioner. The criteria given to pastors is that the nominee should be a lay person who has served the parish well over an extended period of time and has done so in a quiet, unassuming and, perhaps, unrecognized fashion.
Also, each of the regional bishops is asked to nominate a religious and a deacon from his region with similar qualifications. The Central Ministries of the archdiocese also make nominations from among religious, deacons and lay persons who serve on archdiocesan committees or lead important ministries.
With this year's group of recipients the total number of individuals and couples who have been named Cheverus medalists stands at 726. There were 93 recipients in 2013, 121 in 2012, 97 in 2011, 98 in 2010 and 133 in 2009. There were 68 awardees in 2008.
Friends and family members of the honorees are welcome to attend the service at the cathedral. The presence of the pastor and a delegation of parishioners is also encouraged to help underscore the parish's appreciation for the service of the honoree.
Cheverus Award recipients 2014
Ms. Tete Adeleke, Sacred Hearts, Malden
Ms. Ana Gladys Amaya, Hispanic Community/Sacred Heart, Roslindale
Ms. Rosemary Angeramo, St. Adelaide, Peabody
Mrs. Dona Bacco, St. Rose of Lima, Topsfield
Mr. Alfred Belanger, St. Mary, Plymouth
Mr. Robert Berlo, St. Mary, Quincy
Mrs. Mary Blasi, St. Kateri Tekakwitha, Plymouth
Mrs. Jolyne Boyle St. Mary Star of the Sea, Beverly
Sister Patricia Boyle, CSJ, Pastoral Center Ministries
Mrs. Patricia Buckjune, Our Lady of Grace, Pepperell
Mr. Joseph Burke, St. Bernadette, Randolph
Mrs. Mary Caruso, St. Benedict Parish, Somerville
Mrs. Patricia Chevalier, St. John the Evangelist, N. Chelmsford
Mr. David (Dung) Chi Ngo, Vietnamese Community/Sacred Hearts, Malden
Sister Elizabeth Clarke, SHCJ, North Region
Brother David K. Coakley, OSB, South Region
Sister Mary Pedro Conway, SMSM, Archdiocese of Boston
Mrs. Florence Cranshaw, St. Theresa of Lisieux, Sherborn
Mr. Paul Francis Creegan Sr., St. Margaret of Scotland, Lowell
Ms. Helen Cross, Patronage of St. Joseph, Somerville
Ms. Kathleen E. Crozier, Our Lady of Victories, Boston
Sister Ellen Dabrieo, Brazilian Community/St. John the Baptist, Peabody
Mrs. Kelly Damon, St. Thecla, Pembroke
Mrs. Audanette David, Haitian Community/St. Matthew, Dorchester
Mr. James Davidson, Holy Ghost Parish, Whitman
Mr. Victor DeLeon, St. Mary of the Assumption, Lawrence
Mrs. Maria Della Porta, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, (Sacred Heart Church)
Ms. Claire Detora, Archdiocese of Boston
Mr. Nellio DiTullio, St. Joseph, Quincy
Ms. Doris DiTullio, St. Anthony of Padua, Everett
Mrs. Joan Donnelly, St. Marguerite D'Youville, Dracut
Mr. Timothy Donovan, St. Jerome, Weymouth
Mrs. Concetta Donovan, Our Lady Star of the Sea, Marblehead
Ms. Marie Aurore Dorcely, Haitian Community/St. Anne, Somerville
Mr. Daniel Falvey, Blessed Sacrament, Walpole
Ms. Janet A. Farrell, St. Cecilia, Ashland
Mr. and Mrs. Kevin and Lynne Feeney, St. Raphael, Medford
Ms. Donna Felzani, St. Anthony Padua, Revere
Ms. Joan Ferguson, St. Bridget, Maynard
Mr. Fernando Fernandez-Arellano, Our Lady of the Assumption, East Boston
Deacon Marcio O. Fonseca, Central Region/St. Mark, Dorchester
Mr. James Fowkes, St. Bridgid, South Boston
Dr. David Gabriel, St. Thomas the Apostle, Salem/Peabody (Posthumous)
Mr. Edio Galvez, Hispanic Community/St. Columbkille, Brighton
Mr. and Mrs. David and Kathleen Gannon, St. Richard of Chichester, Danvers
Ms. Phyllis Giordano, Society of St. James/St. Stephen, Boston
Mrs. Francis H. Girard, St. Theresa of Lisieux, Sherborn
Mr. Mel Gouthro, St. Mary, Wrentham
Ms. Ann Grady, St. Mary of the Angels, Roxbury
Brother Robert Green, CFX, North Region
Deacon James Greer, Pastoral Center Ministries
Ms. Doreen Gulledge, St. Peter, Cambridge
Mr. Richard Howard, St. Agnes, Reading
Ms. Jean Hunt, St. Ann, Dorchester (Neponset)
Brother John R. Jaskowiak, OFM , Central Region
Mr. Robert D. Keefe, St. Anthony Shrine, Boston
Ms. Ann J. Kleponis, St. Peter (Lithuanian Parish), South Boston
Mr. William L. Lajuenesse, St. Matthias, Marlborough
Mr. Richard LaPorte, Archdiocese of Boston
Ms. Margaret LaRoche, Our Lady Help of Christians, Newton
Ms. Pilar Latorre, Archdiocese of Boston
Mr. Robert J. Lavoie, St. John the Evangelist, Hopkington
Mr. William Lawless, St. John the Baptist, Quincy
Mr. Derryl Lawrence, St. Peter, Plymouth
Sister Mary Joan Lofgren, CSJ, South Region
Dr. Francis Lombardo, St. Eulalia, Winchester
Ms. Anne M. Lynch, Our Lady of Lourdes, Jamaica Plain
Mr. William MacDonald, St. Mary, Georgetown
Ms. Mary Magner, St. Thomas Aquinas, Nahant
Mrs. Ellie Martin, St. Dorothy, Wilmington
Ms. Mary Mc Ginn, St. John the Evangelist, Swampscott
Mr. John McClellan, St. James, Stoughton
Sister Maureen McDonough, OCarm/F, West Region
Mr. William "Skip" Miller, St. Vincent de Paul, South Boston
Sister Virginia Mulhern, SDNdeN, Central Region
Mr. Hung Nguyen, St. Mary, Randolph
Ms. Mary O'Rourke, St. Brendan, Dorchester
Mrs. Maribelle Ortiz, Hispanic Community/St. Patrick, Brockton
Mr. Remo Palomba, St. Thomas Aquinas, Jamaica Plain
Mrs. Anne Paradis, St. Augustine, Andover
Deacon John W. Pepi, St. Bridget, Maynard
Mrs. Jane B. Piacentini, St. George, Framingham
Mr. Wayne Pickles, Corpus Christi, Lawrence
Mr. Lee Pimentel, St. Francis of Assisi, Dracut
Mr. Joseph Puleo, St. Florence, Wakefield
Deacon Luis Rivera, North Region
Ms. Suzanne Robotham, St. Joseph, Belmont
Mr. Paul Roche, St. Bonaventure, Manomet
Ms. Susan Rudolph, St. John the Evangelist, Cambridge
Mrs. Carolyn N. Ryan, Sacred Heart, Weymouth
Deacon Kenneth N. Ryan, South Region
Mrs. Rose Shea, Cheverus Centennial School, Malden
Mr. Joseph Shubster, Holy Name, West Roxbury
Mrs. Katia Silva, Immaculate Conception, Stoughton
Ms. Angela Siraco, Our Lady of the Assumption
Mr. Don Soule, St. Martha, Plainville
Mrs. Patricia Souza, Brazilian Community/St. Anthony, Somerville
Ms. Patricia Strumm, Gate of Heaven, South Boston
Mr. John K. Sullivan, St. Gregory, Dorchester
Sister Margaret L. Sullivan, CSJ, Pastoral Center Ministries
Mr. Kam Sylvestre, Our Lady of Grace, Chelsea/Everett
Mr. Walter Symolon, St. Francis Xavier, Weymouth
Ms. Ida Toro, St. Patrick, Watertown
Mr. Paul Tousignant, St. Rita, Lowell
Ms. Mary Ellen Valeri, St. Pius V, Lynn
Ms. Mercedes Vazquez, St. Christopher, Dorchester
Mrs. Josephine Vendetti, Sacred Heart of Jesus, Cambridge
Dr. Miriam Vincent, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Boston
Ms. Rachel Voiland, St. Lucy, Methuen
Mr. Lloyd Wajda, Archdiocese of Boston
Sister Agnes Wan, St. Joseph, Boston
Mr. Donald Wark, St. Anne, Salem
Mr. Arthur Whittemore, Department of Youth Services
Mr. John Wilhelm, St. Paul, Hamilton/Wenham
Mr. Benjamin A. Williams, St. Ann, West Bridgewater
Mr. Stephen Zrike Sr., St. Jude, Norfolk
Photos by George Martell - BCDS, Archdiocese of Boston 2014