Semovente M40 75/18 in Tunisia

[Kuno]

Colleagues; the area where this picture has been taken is obviously in the Northern part of Tunisia - would presume around Zaghouan. I actually doubt that under the climatic conditions there, the wreackage would still look like it does on above picture.

My opinion was that this is a wartime color photograph and not a recent discovery of a wreck in Tunisia.

The holder of the copyright of the picture is "Time Life Picturey / Gettyimages" ;-)

[Treadhead]

I don't believe I've ever seen a wartime or near post war image of that clarity, this image looks like a modern digital camera image.

[Treadhead]

Notice the half brick on the engine deck, what is the likelihood of finding that type of brick in an area known for Mud Brick Adobe style homes?
8 holes in the brick? I'd say that is a fairly modern development.

[Kuno]

Unfortunately I cannot find the series of color pictures anymore which deals with the fighting at el-Guettar in Tunisia (el-Guettar is mentioned in the original post below - not Zaghouan as I had presumed above). There are dozens of photos where you would think that they are shots from a monumental Hollywood-movie > but they were taken in 1943!

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...f=47&p=1216442

[Kuno]

...we can stop argueing. Here are the details to above photo:

Titel:
Abandoned Armored Flamethrower. View of abandoned armor with a flamethrower mount left behind during the desert fighting between American and German forces in the El Guettar Valley, Tunisia, early 1943. (Photo by Eliot Elisofon/Time & Life PIctures/Getty Images)

Bildnummer: 56256420

Lizenztyp: Lizenzpflichtig

Fotograf: Eliot Elisofon/Freier Fotograf

Kollektion: Time & Life Pictures

Quelle: Time & Life Pictures

Bildnachweis: Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

Erstellt am: 31 Dez 1942

Strichcode: 1216564

Objektname: 1216564.jpg

Urheberrecht: Time & Life Pictures

[Treadhead]

It's all a little strange isn't it?
not withstanding the fact that the semovente was misidentified as a Flamethrower tank, we have what appears to be a German Correspondant working for Time & Life with the ability to "Time Travel"

"left behind early 1943"

but the image was cataloged "Dez 31 1942"

I'm sure it all makes perfect sense in someones world, just not mine.

Originally Posted by Kuno

...we can stop argueing. Here are the details to above photo:

Titel:
Abandoned Armored Flamethrower. View of abandoned armor with a flamethrower mount left behind during the desert fighting between American and German forces in the El Guettar Valley, Tunisia, early 1943. (Photo by Eliot Elisofon/Time & Life PIctures/Getty Images)

Bildnummer: 56256420

Lizenztyp: Lizenzpflichtig

Fotograf: Eliot Elisofon/Freier Fotograf

Kollektion: Time & Life Pictures

Quelle: Time & Life Pictures

Bildnachweis: Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

Erstellt am: 31 Dez 1942

Strichcode: 1216564

Objektname: 1216564.jpg

Urheberrecht: Time & Life Pictures

[Treadhead]

Just how daft is this photo hey!!

Sure it was knocked out & abandoned, but the caption totally fails to explain the Sdkfz 231 8 Rad & Tiger Tank trundling down the road beside it does it!

It's obvious what's happened, the Black & white photo is the original wartime photo, the modern colour overlay has been inserted as a before & after shot, & ever boob has concluded that the 2 are from the same time period!

I wouldn't be surprised if the article in which these photos appear is about Tunisia today

[Kuno]

Hi Colin; I can understand that you are excited about the picture - felt the sae in the beginning and would have liked just to drive there...

Please allow some comments to your above statements:

1) What brings you to the conclusion that the photographer was of German nationality? I would say, that even it would not matter - he was taking the pictures on the US-side.

2) Note the distance of the position of the photographer to the Semovente is different. Whilst for the b/w pic he is standing away, for the color pic he is standing just at the wall. Therefore we can see the fallen down stones.

3) That tools etc. are missing on the color pic is no wonder - whatever was useable had been removed immediately. Either - if possible- by the former owner, by the enemy or... by the local population.

4) The gun does actually look more like a flamethrower than a gun. Easy to be missinterpreted. Presume that the text to the photo might be provided by somebody else than the photographer. If you are familiar with war-participants photo-abums, then you can see, how often they made completely wrong captions to their own pictures.

[Treadhead]

Found the image you spoke of, comparing the two we can see that the Stonewall has partially collapsed, it is also overgrown with weeds & grass, if this shot was taken even within a few months of the action the blackened fire scorched areas around any access hatches would still be black, not rusted, we can see a full radio aerial & what appears to be spares or tools on the mid section of fender in the black & white photo.

none of your wartime photos comes close to lighting, sharpness & clarity.

[rewdco]

Originally Posted by Kuno

Colleagues; the area where this picture has been taken is obviously in the Northern part of Tunisia - would presume around Zaghouan. I actually doubt that under the climatic conditions there, the wreackage would still look like it does on above picture.

My opinion was that this is a wartime color photograph and not a recent discovery of a wreck in Tunisia.

The holder of the copyright of the picture is "Time Life Picturey / Gettyimages" ;-)

According to the TIME photographic archives, this picture was taken in Tunesia in April 1943...

http://images.google.com/hosted/life...%3Dnl%26sa%3DN

Jan

[Kuno]

Have seen it as well at that place. The hires photo gives a further indication that it is not an old tank sitting there until today. Further, it just fits into the context - so it is for sure a conteporary photo of a Semovente.