Re: [MV] "Tank" - why/

From: David Reay (david@zundapp.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 12:33:52 PDT


As a variation on the thene:
General Inscription.

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Notton" <Richard@fv623.demon.co.uk>
To: "Military Vehicles List" <mil-veh@skylee.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] "Tank" - why/

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <RoughDoc@aol.com>
> To: "Military Vehicles List" <mil-veh@skylee.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [MV] "Tank" - why/
>
>
> > We can blame/credit the Brits for this one.
> >
> Absolutely.
>
> > The large armored land battle ships (in England) were under the
direction
> of
> > the Navy, not the Army. The disguise of these as water tanks is a
> completely
> > true rumor. And the name stayed!
> >
> > How about that other wonderful nickname, the "GI"?
> >
> General Intake, "Draft".
>
> Richard
> Southampton - England
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@skylee.com>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@skylee.com>
> To reach a human, contact <help@skylee.com>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 23:51:33 PDT