Formerly Babra Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 I'm pretty saavy on kangaroos, but I'm still looking for info on the elusive "Stuart Kangaroo". Anyone have Hunnicut's "Stuart" to check this out for me? I have serious doubts about the existence of this vehicle and/or its usage. AFAIK, the Priest and Ram varieties were the only kangaroos to see action. I could be wrong, and if I am I wanna know about it. ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuka Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Kangaroos?, Kangaroos? You want to know about Kangaroos? Well here's the drum on kangaroos. They are great big hairy buggers ranging in colour from brown to red. This system of camoflage was of benefit in North Africa, especially during the fighting around Tobruk, however the lack of albino kangaroos rendered them next to useless on the eastern front where several captured specimens (2 males and 1 female I believe) were pressed into service by the desperate Von Manstein in his attempts to relieve Stalingrad. I would not expect them to be modelled in CM 2. The best service they were able to provide was mobile ammunition carriers due to the storage capacity of their forward pouch, which was not to be confused with the rear pouch as many ANZAC's were to discover while mistakenly trying to store their grenades in the wrong pouch. As combat units the short arms of the Kangaroo prevented them from handling rifles and in cases of guard duty it was reported that the kangaroo would often leave it's weapon leaning against a tree while it's attention was occupied by the scratching of fleas, a design fault inherent from the first prototype model. As design faults go the revolutionary suspension system of the kangaroo left a lot to be desired as movement was made in a series of giant leaps which played hell with gun optics and required the kangaroo to remain stationary in order to acquire its target. However stationary roo's often found themselves as the targets of old pick ups equipped with spot-lights and drunken yobbo's shouldering semi-automatics. Production of Kangaroos has continued unabated since WW2 as Australia has around 20 million of them. I hope this has been of help to you babra. P.S. Stuart Kangaroo? I've never met him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted July 20, 2000 Author Share Posted July 20, 2000 Not much help at all, Stuka. But thanks for pushing it to the top anyway... ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: Kangaroos?, Kangaroos? You want to know about Kangaroos? <Extremely large snip> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL, You forgot to add that stationary Kangaroos are also used as target drones by Australian motorists, and make for colorful decorations at the side of that Nation's roadways! But somehow, I don't think Babra was talking about those sort of Kangaroos! [This message has been edited by Mace (edited 07-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 The best service they were able to provide was mobile ammunition carriers due to the storage capacity of their forward pouch, which was not to be confused with the rear pouch as many ANZAC's were to discover while mistakenly trying to store their grenades in the wrong pouch. ------------- Heheheheheh... this cracks me up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lutz Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Actually kangaroos are quiet effective against helicopters: From June 15, 1999 Defence Science and Technology Organisation Lecture Series, Melbourne, Australia, and staff reports: Skippy the Killer Kangaroo The reuse of some object-oriented code has caused tactical headaches for Australia's armed forces. As virtual reality simulators assume larger roles in helicopter combat training, programmers have gone to great lengths to increase the realism of their scenarios, including detailed landscapes and, in the case of the Northern Territory's Operation Phoenix, herds of kangaroos (since disturbed animals might well give away a helicopter's position). The head of the Defence Science & Technology Organisation's Land Operations/Simulation division reportedly instructed developers to model the local marsupials' movements and reactions to helicopters. Being efficient programmers, they just re-appropriated some code originally used to model infantry detachment reactions under the same stimuli, changed the mapped icon from a soldier to a kangaroo, and increased the figures' speed of movement. Eager to demonstrate their flying skills for some visiting American pilots, the hotshot Aussies "buzzed" the virtual kangaroos in low flight during a simulation. The kangaroos scattered, as predicted, and the visiting Americans nodded appreciatively... then did a double-take as the kangaroos reappeared from behind a hill and launched a barrage of Stinger missiles at the hapless helicopter. (Apparently the programmers had forgotten to remove that part of the infantry coding.) The lesson? Objects are defined with certain attributes, and any new object defined in terms of an old one inherits all the attributes. The embarrassed programmers had learned to be careful when reusing object-oriented code, and the Yanks left with a newfound respect for Australian wildlife. Simulator supervisors report that pilots from that point onward have strictly avoided kangaroos, just as they were meant to. Soory Babra, I know this doesn't answer your question, but I couldn't resist . Lutz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 This is a bit nebulous I realize, but for what it is worth: I have two old books at home that make references to the Stuart minus it's turret, and I spent about an hour on the net looking for references on the Stuart Kangaroo, and found it mentioned by name (no pictures though, naturally). Condensed, the above basically said that the turret was removed and seats were put in, along the lines of the Ram variant. It seems that "Kangaroo" was the name stuck to any of the field modified types, whether they were Priests, Rams, Stuarts, or old Sherman hulls. The Stuart in British/Canadian sevice was turretless as a command tank, a recce tank, and as a mini-prime mover, also. http://www.shadowsfolly.com/WWII/USA/LightM3_M5.htm The above URL is typical of the info I found. Given the use made of other chassis in the role of an ad hoc APC, it seems like a logical extension that the Stuart could be used in the same way. This site: http://www.mapleleafup.org/intro.html is in the process of getting an article up about Canadian Stuarts, so maybe something interesting will show up there...wish I had Hunnicutt's books, too, but they are a little expensive for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted July 20, 2000 Author Share Posted July 20, 2000 Thanks, Kevin. I was -- ahem -- gently pointed at that website last night, but as proof of what I'm not sure. Use as a prime mover makes sense, but I can't believe such an unsuitable vehicle would ever be used as an APC. Can you imagine cramming a section and their equipment into that tiny turret ring? Still, if there's evidence out there that these vehicles were used as anything other than tractors, I'd like to have a look at it. ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts