#French tanks

[captain-price-unofficially]

Leclerc looking menacing in dense fog.

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Hi, new to your blog! I love all the people who run "identifying-[thing]-in-posts" blogs

Friend posted this in our local Discord channel, photo taken somewhere in Indonesia, maybe near a war museum. Could you ID the tank?

AMX-13/75, French light tank, Atelier de Construction Roanne, entered Indonesian service in 1960.

99% confidence.

[tanksandbeyond]

A French VEXTRA 105 undergoing desert trials in the United Arab Emirates, October 1997.

The VEXTRA (from Vehicule EXTRAordinaire) was developed in the early 1990s by GIAT, today's Nexter Industries. The version above, the VEXTRA 105, mounted a 105mm GIAT G2 rifled gun for reconnaissance, fire support, and anti-tank duties. On roads, it could reach speeds of 120 km/h (74 mph) thanks to a 600 hp Scania diesel engine. First revealed in 1997, the VEXTRA 105 underwent a number of trials in both France and the United Arab Emirates, seeing a lot of success in its firepower trials. Despite this, none were ever ordered.

[westcoastmidnightrun]

THE IMPACT AND RAMIFICATIONS OF FRENCH TANKS TO UKRAINE

A small editorial piece in our West Coast Midnight Run Forums on the potential long-term impact of President Macron’s promise to send French tanks to Ukraine on the eve of a possible new Russian offensive whose outcome, fail or success, could have massive ramifications to both NATO and the world.

[chamoemileclown]

Them <3

[theworldofwars]

German Prisoners as Stretcher-Bearers

Prisoners were often pressed into carrying the wounded off the battlefield, as shown by this photograph taken during the 1916 Battle of the Somme.

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Replica Renault FT-17, French Light Tank, orig. 1917, rep. 2023

99% confidence

[vintagepromotions]

'The taxes you pay for the war To fight for peace is to fight against dear life'

French Communist Party poster (c. 1930).

[captain-price-unofficially]

A row of Char 2Cs assigned to 551e régiment de chars de combat (RCC) at Camp de Châlons at Mourmelon-le-Grand, near Châlons-en-Champagne in 1924.

[frogblast-the-ventcore]

Top: French Boirault 1 experimental "tank" design (1914)

Bottom: German Treffas-Wagen experimental wheeled tank (1916)

From clockwise right, we have:

Hellreigel 9mm submachine gun (text via IMFDB: "As of current knowledge, there was only ever one example of the Hellriegel and it did not survive the war. Its caliber, capacity, operating method, and whether or not it was even a functional weapon are conjecture based on analysis of the photographs and historical context. It is assumed to have been blowback operated with the projections at the rear being a pair of recoil springs, and the large structure over the barrel is thought to have been a leather-wrapped water or oil jacket for cooling. From what little could be known about the weapon from the three images, it appears that the Hellriegel is a large-capacity submachine gun, firing what seems to be a 9mm cartridge. It would make the Hellriegel one of the first submachine guns made in the world by definition of a submachine gun. It wouldn't be referred as a submachine gun at the time, as the term "submachine gun" was first coined in 1921 to advertise the Thompson Submachine Gun; the Hellriegel was referred to as a machine gun (Maschinengewehr) on the image caption. It could feed from straight box magazines, or from a large drum magazine which was not actually connected to the weapon and instead fed the cartridges through a flexible chute. The unusual appearance of this drum magazine led to some assumptions that it was belt fed, however this is not the case with the rounds being unconnected from one another and are propelled along the drum and feed chute by a spring in a similar manner to the Trommelmagazin snail drum used by the Luger pistol. The drum magazine is believed to be able to hold up to 160 rounds while the box mag is limited to 20 or so. It seems to be crew-served, as one image depicts an ammo bearer with a backpack for drum magazines, and its seeming intention to be used as a stationary weapon given its weighted base for the drum and its machine gun name (making it a "heavy" submachine gun of sorts). The provision for a drum but not a bipod however, means it is unclear what exactly the weapon was intended to be used for. All three pictures were taken from the right side of the gun, so what the left side looked like is a complete mystery."

Tsar tank (absolutely bonkers Russian experimental wheeled tank):

Hand-dropped bomb runs (commonplace during the war until bomb racks were invented for small aircraft):

German cavalry with pikes (note the horse gas masks).

Also this happened:

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

what’s your favorite tank? from a purely aesthetic perspective

Well, I'm not just going to answer Leo 2 again, cause that would be kinda cheap (even tho it's true, God I wanna fuck that tank).

So, instead, I'll go through a list of my esthetically favorite tanks throughout their history, as well as a 1 sentence description of why.

1917 - Renault FT-17 - it's an awesome light tank, as well as the first iteration of the modern form of the tank.

1942 - PzKpfw. V - a bit of a shameful favorite, but it just looks cool as hell.

1943 - M18 GMC - it's just a badass tank destroyer, what do I even say? There's a 1/36 scale model of it on my shelf.

1953 - M41 Walker-Bulldog - it just looks badass. I have a 1/36 scale model of it sitting on my shelf right now.

1980 - M1 Abrams - I mean, c'mon. I'm an American. What am I gonna pick other than the Abrams? It's the American cousin of the Leopard II, My Beloved.

So, I hope this was satisfactory? If not, I don't know, kick a Russian sympathizer or something.

[pynkhues]

I recently read an article in which Quentin Tarantino stated that fewer movie stars exist as a result of "Marvel movies in Hollywood." I think Jennifer Aniston made a similar argument before saying that there are no longer any movie stars. I'm not sure what that means. I can think of a lot of movie stars right now, such as Zendaya, Timothee Chalamet, and Zoey Deutch etc. what do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this and Quentin's comments.

QuillBot's

Months ago, when you sent me this ask, anon, I wrote out a really long reply and as soon as I hit post, my laptop crashed and ate the answer, and I was so annoyed at myself for not saving my reply, that I couldn't bring myself to try and re-write an answer. I'm really sorry for that, especially because I think this is such an interesting ask (or well, two asks, because I think the death of the movie star and the impact Marvel's had on the broader concept of a movie star, are kinda two different things).

I've been thinking about it a bit again recently though, particularly as the Oscar race gears up, and Jacob Elordi and Charles Melton''s respective stars are rising in an industry currently desperate to find the new young Hollywood male 'talent', and I've been thinking about it again because honestly?

I agree with Jennifer Aniston, I think the movie star is dead.

We are a long, long way from Golden Age Hollywood where actors like Cary Grant and Marilyn Monroe could captivate a public imagination in a way that translated to big box office effect, after all. Hell, we're even out of New Hollywood, an era dominated by names like Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, and Jane Fonda, and the Blockbuster era with Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Harrison Ford.

My original reply went into a lot of the different reasoning as to why this is (like with many things, I don't think there's any one reason for it), in particular how the advent of streaming has changed our relationship with films and TV shows, how the saturation of the market has diluted the staying power of celebrities, how social media and the perceived accessibility of celebrities removes personal mystique which in turn removes intrigue and increases a sense of entitlement, and the fact that so many people having stopped going to the cinema means that the experiential element of seeing a film in a setting larger than life has been diminished.

I think call out culture plays a role too, with any actor on the rise being torn down by tweets they made eight, nine or ten years ago impacting how their star rises, I think the dismantling of the studio system (which is a good thing!) also harmed actors in the long run as studios stopped investing the same resources into making and training stars (they used to be able to sing, dance and act! Now some can barely even act!), and I think, of course, the rise of prestige TV changed the industry substantially (after all, movie stars were movie stars - they traditionally did not, and would not, do TV, which created a clear class structure in terms of screen-based storytelling).

And yeah, I think the language shift from film and TV to content has done irrepairable damage to the artistry of filmmaking and the consideration of a movie star as an actor at the top of their field instead of an actor with the most Insta followers or YouTube subscribers (after all, if everything's content, isn't it the same thing? [no lol]).

Which I guess is kind of where Quentin Tarantino's argument comes in, right? What he's saying is that Marvel's made it so that the IP - the content itself - is the star, not the actor, and I'd say he's probably right with that.

Think of it this way - back in the New Hollywood/Blockbuster era, Harrison Ford was the movie star - he was leading new franchises left-right-and-centre between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, sci fi epics like Blade Runner, leading action thrillers like Patriot Games, The Fugitive and Clear and Present Danger and getting nominated for Oscars for Witness.

He was a movie star in every sense of the word because you could hinge a film - one with a new concept, not just remakes or sequels - on him and be virtually guaranteed a success. He was what sold the tickets, the director just hopefully had to make something good enough people would leave the cinema glad they saw.

Tarantino's argument is the Marvel model - - hell, even the new Star Wars properties, turned the franchise into the star, for better or worse, which means original films can't compete because nobody knows the IP. Back when Harrison Ford was at the top of his game, his name was what helped original films including smaller, standalone works like Witness find an audience, but the studios have changed that. Capitalism has changed that.

Properties with existing audiences and deep pockets for merch were prioritised, only now those franchises are faltering and you've got a generation trained that 'cinematic events' are reserved for blockbusters in established universes, instead of taking a risk on a new film because you know you love an actor who's in it.

Do I think we could go back?

Maybe, but probably not.

I think the place we are now in the history of cinema / TV / 'content' means you can't make a movie star anymore because I think the industry is simply so different that no actor can break through in the same way that even Leonardo DiCaprio could 30 years ago. That industry doesn't exist anymore, actors aren't guaranteed draws (Bones and All proved that for Timothee Chalamet, and Wonka I think could go a similar way), or they have to heavily rely on other industries to become household names which I think dilutes them as a pure 'movie star' (Zendaya's a great example of this - I like her a lot, but how many movies has she even been in? They built her career up in peripheral industries long before they tried to sell her as a movie star, and frankly, I'd question her even as a leading actress yet given she's typically only either been in ensemble casts or clear supporting).

It's a whole new world, and yeah, I think the movie star is dead.

[depravationssensuelles]

[vladstocker]

Tank Girl 2

[uncle-mojave]

War Thunder - Char 2C Bis Swing

Have been messing around with AI song generation and I think I got a banger.

[postcard-from-the-past]

Transporting a tank in the Mailly military camp, Champagne region of France

French vintage postcard