Jump to content

Due to a hardware failure on the hosts systems, all posts and messages created between May 26th and Jan 13th have been lost. Additionally, if you joined the NPORA Forums community during that time, you'll need to re-register. -NPORA Mod Team *Updated: 05/19/2022 12:15AM PST

Machine gun fires after being buried 70 years


devonianwalk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not only to PA, but literally minutes from me! Already making plans on which boat were gonna use (my neighbor and me) to hijack it and where to hide it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My absolute favourite (thanks to Pappy Boyington and The Black Sheep Squadron :lol: ) is the F4U Corsair. I finally got to see one live last year at the Boeing Aircraft museum in Seattle. What a beauty!!!! :wub::lol:

 

Just for you BW...... http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwariiaircraft/p/f4ucorsair.htm?nl=1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:jig::wub::wackinit: ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks! I feel better now...I'm looking for "the black sheep squadron episodes in PirateBay now... :lol:

 

China beat ya to it..........

Hahahaha...that is cool...Imagine something like this 'stormin' the beach on D-day... they'd been like... :blink::wtf::welcome:

Edited by Bluewulf73
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

China beat ya to it..........

That's the duck coming here! :jig: just wait, I'll be in the news... "Scrawny bearded guy with pink shoelaces and his ogre partner arrested for attempted duck-jacking on the allegheny river"
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already making plans on which boat were gonna use (my neighbor and me) to hijack it and where to hide it!

 

 

Fill Big Yella with hydrogen and ride it away :D

 

Think 'Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb'

 

Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.j

 

CATCH ME NOWW MOTHERDUCKERS ! !! YEEEEEHAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, here we go........ :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

Now, stop all this nationalistic arguing, if any of us were that gung ho about our countries we'd be driving Land Rovers & Jeeps not Nissan's!!! :aok::rofl::itsallgood:

HMMPH just remember what the first Land Rovers were built from :D

 

as an old CJ5 owner just had to say it :D

 

if it don't say Willys on the tailgate it ain't a jeep :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the newer ones catch on fire quite consistently, they must have gotten something figured out! :lol:

 

I'll agree, I'm not sure what is up with some of the English vehicular wiring/elecronics. I've known a few guys who restored/rebuilt old Triumph and Norton motorcycles. Every time step one was rip out the entire wiring harness/electronic assemblies and start over... :huh:

 

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly!

Sorry, but no love here. Typical Brit "look how awesome we were' crap. The Spitfire was a great plane but it was a high performance/short distance interceptor which is an easy roll to fill (they aren't meant to last). The armament was weak! 4-8 machine guns and no cannons. Nice that you can dig it up and clean it up enough to fire, but why did it take 70 years to care?

 

While the BF109 wasn't perfect, it had 20mm cannons and that makes a huge difference.

 

This is what made people pee in their pants though..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdPv0h5Kpm4

 

B

 

Hey all,

 

My :my2cents::my2cents:

 

Yesterday I watched a WWII movie...I know, Hollywood...no, but really it clearly displays the true nature of people during wars.

 

It is about how we can all be brothers if/when not carrying out the work of evil-doers. Part of the story focuses on two soldiers, one german, one american, both wounded, yet somehow they find it in their hearts to help each other and treat each other with civility. I am sure the war was riddled with hundreds of untold instances like that one.

 

It is not a good movie by any means but it does drive home the message that wars are not the solider's war, they are the botched-up dreams of mindless, butchering leaders sending normal folk, with families and dreams to their deaths.

 

Personally, I love all types of WWII Aircraft, Ships and Weaponry. In most instances, there is no one clearly better than the other. Each had their faults and benefits. My dad had a huge collection of books and videos on WWII which he unfortunately sold but those books were hours of enjoyment for me. Spitfires, ME109's, Zeros and Mustangs are mongst my favourites. My absolute favourite (thanks to Pappy Boyington and The Black Sheep Squadron :lol: ) is the F4U Corsair. I finally got to see one live last year at the Boeing Aircraft museum in Seattle. What a beauty!!!! :wub::lol:

 

Personally, I didn't lose anyone in any of the wars and empathyse with anyone who did. I think that aside from a few knuckleheads who went to war with the intent to harm and kill, no one went willingly or happily. Most were brainwashed or ofrced into service and into thinking this was a necessity and their duty. (Duty to protect their rights and freedoms yes, totally) Their duty to kill others whose "duty" was to kill them...well...Wars are a terrible thing made up by those who never fully grow and wisen up.

 

Oh yeah , and what is that monstrosity? Russian-ized unimog? :laugh: It looks absolutely brutal! Except I don't see why one would put fogs so low to the ground...just beggin' for them to be ripped off. :/

 

NE way, nice to see everyone getting along... :handlebars: That is why I come here... :lol:

 

If you read about pre-war Nazi Germany you will realize there was no brainwashing or forced service. Perhaps a sense of shared desperation, and a yearning to recapture their national pride. The German people still went to war willingly.

 

 

Exactly!

Sorry, but no love here. Typical Brit "look how awesome we were' crap. The Spitfire was a great plane but it was a high performance/short distance interceptor which is an easy roll to fill (they aren't meant to last). The armament was weak! 4-8 machine guns and no cannons. Nice that you can dig it up and clean it up enough to fire, but why did it take 70 years to care?

 

While the BF109 wasn't perfect, it had 20mm cannons and that makes a huge difference.

 

This is what made people pee in their pants though..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdPv0h5Kpm4

 

B

 

 

 

There were many versions of the Spitfire, in fact, they continued to be upgraded throughout the war. Versions were built with many wing varieties, power plants, and armaments - including the 20mm cannon. Other versions were used for ground attack and for observation (in fact the Spitfire was a pioneer aircraft within this role). The Spitfire has an excellent kill ratio, and was one of the most venerable, feared, and successful aircraft of WWII.

 

Of course, the Focke Wulf 190 was a shock to the RAF when it showed up and outclassed them, but later in the war the Spitfire ended up outclassing the 190 due to constant upgrades.

 

Remember, this technology was still very new, and air power had not been used in major warfare by most countries since the first war. The German's on the other hand had vastly more experience with what would, and what wouldn't work because of their involvement in the Spanish Civil War.

 

The Russians would not nearly have done so well in the war if they had not been helped economically and materially by the Americans and British. Also, if the UK had agreed to a ceasefire (as Hitler wanted), there would have been no European Front and Germany could have pushed a lot more troops and resources into the Russian Front. The point is that the ALLIES won the war by cooperating together, not an individual country striking out on its own. Incidentally over 1,000 Spitfires were used by the Russians.

 

Furthermore, the word Panzer just means "tank". There were many Panzer's that the Sherman was superior to, in fact for most of the war the Sherman's long 75mm barrel outgunned the short 75mm barrel on German tanks. When the Germans upgraded to longer barrels, the Shermans upgraded to 76mm. Unlike most European countries however, the Sherman was not optimized for one role (tank killing, infantry support etc.), but was intended to fulfill all roles decently well. Of course this left it vulnerable to stronger tanks, such as the Tiger and the Panther - which only appeared at the end of the war. Ordinance tests had initially shown the 76mm gun could destroy either of these tanks, but this was proved to be incorrect. Tests did show that the Sherman was equally able to destroy Russian tanks, as demonstrated in the Korean war.

 

Source: Bachelors Degree in History

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source: Bachelors Degree in History

 

Awesome! I was clinging to every word of your post wondering if that was coming from you or if you were plagiarizing. I find it funny that if you copy from one person it is "plagiarism" but, if you copy from many it is "research". :lol:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome! I was clinging to every word of your post wondering if that was coming from you or if you were plagiarizing. I find it funny that if you copy from one person it is "plagiarism" but, if you copy from many it is "research". :lol:

 

Yes, basically my whole degree is based on copying many other people in "my own words".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read about pre-war Nazi Germany you will realize there was no brainwashing or forced service. Perhaps a sense of shared desperation, and a yearning to recapture their national pride. The German people still went to war willingly.

 

 

Furthermore, the word Panzer just means "tank". There were many Panzer's that the Sherman was superior to, in fact for most of the war the Sherman's long 75mm barrel outgunned the short 75mm barrel on German tanks. When the Germans upgraded to longer barrels, the Shermans upgraded to 76mm. Unlike most European countries however, the Sherman was not optimized for one role (tank killing, infantry support etc.), but was intended to fulfill all roles decently well. Of course this left it vulnerable to stronger tanks, such as the Tiger and the Panther - which only appeared at the end of the war. Ordinance tests had initially shown the 76mm gun could destroy either of these tanks, but this was proved to be incorrect. Tests did show that the Sherman was equally able to destroy Russian tanks, as demonstrated in the Korean war.

 

Source: Bachelors Degree in History

Well, if he were still alive, I would have you sit down and talk to my father. He would give you some first hand information from someone who was there, and it would apparently surprise you. You could sit down and talk to my mom, but she would probably tell you to leave in a matter of minutes.

 

Source: People who lived through it.

Do not believe everything you read, have you not heard of "History is written by the victors"?

 

 

Sorry, yes, you are correct about the Panzer definition, I did not specify which type. I will supply more information about what I was trying to say. There was a major battle class of German tank that the only way the Sherman tank could puncture its armor was shoot it from behind. Diameter and barrel length are only part of the equasion, projectile mass, design and velocity are the majority of it. :shrug:

 

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because your father and mother were not 100% behind the way Germany was going doesn't mean that the majority of the nation was. That is what I was trying to say. I was also referring to the beginning of the war, not when things started to go badly and people were realizing the gravity of what was happening. Also, I did not mention or imply complicity with any atrocities, just the war, being a Nazi and being a patriotic German were and still are two different things. There were very few Nazis, but many German's fed up with the way the rest of Europe was treating them.

 

An academic degree is based on reading from various texts, including first hand accounts, all of them researched an peer reviewed.

Just because you have chatted to one person first hand doesn't discount the facts.

 

Man, I wasn't even trying to get into personal family BS. Just trying to correct the mistakes about the armament of the Spitfire!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post beastpath! Very interesting & correct on so many points. I also have to side with Precise1 on some points though, history is indeed written by the victors (& often embellished, Caesar's "Gallic Wars is a good example). He is also correct about projectile mass, velocity, etc, being part of the equation & the Sherman being equal or even superior to the short barreled (hence low velocity) guns of the PZKW III & previous models. The PZKW IV was originally intended as an infantry support tank (the PZKW II was intended to engage enemy armor) but in the face of tanks such as the T34 the PZKW III (based on pre war doctrines) was outclassed so the PZKW IV was upgraded with the KwK 40 L/43 anti-tank gun & brought into an anti armor role. However, even the PZKW IV was outclassed by the T34 & KV series of Russian tanks hence the design of my favorite tank of the war, the PZKW V or more commonly the (inspired by the T34) "Panther" tank sporting sloped armor (the first German tank to do so) an excellent high velocity 76.2mm gun, wide tracks (for better cross country mobility), etc. I feel the same way about the Panther as 3rdtimesacharm does about the Corsair & B does about the FW 190. ORGASMIC! :sly:

 

The Panther (along with the Tiger) is one of the tanks B was talking about when he mentioned getting behind the Tank to knock it out. My dad actually drove a couple of Shermans on reconnaissance missions (usually he drove a Bren Gun carrier, also known as a Universal carrier) & was instructed to "get the hell outta there" if he saw a Tiger or Panther. The story goes that the average loss ratio was 3-4 Shermans to knock out 1 Tiger, 2 Shermans to draw the attention of the Tiger, 1 to attack it from the side & 1 to hit it from behind. My dad didn't like the Sherman much, he said they called it "The Ronson" because of it's gasoline engine (most main battle tanks had diesel engines) & the strange habit of washing the inside of the tank with gasoline doused rags to remove the oil & grime. This all made the Sherman go up like a torch when hit by a German high velocity gun such as the 76.2mm or the 88mm. I also talked to a friend of my dads who was a Canadian Army Sherman driver in WWII, he was blinded when his Sherman was knocked out by a frontal shot from an 88mm. The shot went right through the Sherman & blew the motor out of the back, the ammo cooked off, the fuel ignited & Roland was the only one that made it out alive.They thought even he was dead until they noticed him flickering what was left of his eyelids.

 

My dad told me a great story involving a Panther tank, he wrecked a brand new Bren Carrier (he wrecked several during the course of the war) that he'd just picked up from the replacement depot. He was flying down a road (he was a mechanic so he always took the governor off his carriers) & there was a column of Shermans coming the other way with a knocked out Panther on the other side of the road lying half in a ditch. He tried to get between one of the Shermans & the Panther while still going full throttle but the gap was too small & he got jammed between the Sherman & the Panther & wrecked the carrier & got knocked out when the carrier came to a sudden stop & he hit the dash. When he came to he had to walk back to the depot & explain to them how he'd wrecked a brand new carrier within about 10 minutes of picking it up & could he please have another one!! :laugh: :laugh:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read about pre-war Nazi Germany you will realize there was no brainwashing or forced service. Perhaps a sense of shared desperation, and a yearning to recapture their national pride. The German people still went to war willingly.

 

Honestly, your first statement is so wildly inaccurate it is almost laughable. I'm not sure what you studied or who taught you, but an injustice was done. Have you never heard of a particular sociopath by the name of Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, and his entire job and purpose from 1933-1945? Here, let me give you just a few highlights...

 

 

Control of the arts and media was not just a matter of personnel. Soon the content of every newspaper, book, novel, play, film, broadcast and concert, from the level of nationally-known publishers and orchestras to local newspapers and village choirs, was subject to supervision by the Propaganda Ministry, although a process of self-censorship was soon effectively operating in all these fields, leaving the Ministry in Berlin free to concentrate on the most politically sensitive areas such as major newspapers and the state radio. In his 1933 speech, "Radio as the Eighth Great Power" he said:

We .. intend a principled transformation in the worldview of our entire society, a revolution of the greatest possible extent that will leave nothing out, changing the life of our nation in every regard ... It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio and the airplane. It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio.[40]

No author could publish, no painter could exhibit, no singer could broadcast, no critic could criticize, unless they were a member of the appropriate Reich Chamber, and membership was conditional on good behavior. Goebbels could bribe as well as threaten: he secured a large budget for his Ministry, with which he was able to offer generous salaries and subsidies to those in the arts who co-operated with him. Most artists, theatres, and orchestras—after struggling to survive the Depression—found these inducements hard to refuse.[41]

As one of the most highly educated members of the Nazi leadership, and the one with the most authentic pretensions to high culture, Goebbels was sensitive to charges that he was dragging German culture down to the level of mere propaganda. He responded by saying that the purpose of both art and propaganda was to bring about a spiritual mobilization of the German people.

 

If this isn't brainwashing to you, then what is and what is that? Please, don't take my word, there are countless books about the man and his actions/effects. Read one, educate yourself and see if you would make the same statement again.

 

 

Furthermore, the word Panzer just means "tank". There were many Panzer's that the Sherman was superior to, in fact for most of the war the Sherman's long 75mm barrel outgunned the short 75mm barrel on German tanks. When the Germans upgraded to longer barrels, the Shermans upgraded to 76mm. Unlike most European countries however, the Sherman was not optimized for one role (tank killing, infantry support etc.), but was intended to fulfill all roles decently well. Of course this left it vulnerable to stronger tanks, such as the Tiger and the Panther - which only appeared at the end of the war. Ordinance tests had initially shown the 76mm gun could destroy either of these tanks, but this was proved to be incorrect. Tests did show that the Sherman was equally able to destroy Russian tanks, as demonstrated in the Korean war.

 

Again, you are correct, Panzer is the generic term and what I meant to say is Panther, the Panzer 5, I believe. I don't recall saying that the Sherman was a bad tank, just that they had orders to clear out if certain tanks were spotted in the area and I believe theexbrit verified this to some degree? The Sherman was superior in some ways to some Panzers, but really only the ones that were designed (and mostly built) in the 1930s.

Your comment that they 'were vulnerable to the stronger tanks-which only appeared at the end of the war' confuses me. Technically, the US didn't get directly involved until the end of the war (which certainly brought it about more quickly!). The production date of the Sherman starts in 1941 and the Panther starts in 1942, for all practical purposes they were being built at the same time for use in the same places for the same purposes. Toe to toe, there is little question of who had a significant advantage. The Panther was better armored, faster, more manueverable, had a stronger gun and despite being heavier, climbed better and had better flotation. All else being equal, the US was significantly out gunned in the tank world; the Sherman was somewhat superior to the older tank models, but totally out classed by the newer types that were made simultaneously. :shrug:

 

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a sense of shared desperation, and a yearning to recapture their national pride. The German people still went to war willingly.

Yes, that has been pretty much understood, but the second part is questionable...

 

Just because your father and mother were not 100% behind the way Germany was going doesn't mean that the majority of the nation was. That is what I was trying to say. I was also referring to the beginning of the war, not when things started to go badly and people were realizing the gravity of what was happening. Also, I did not mention or imply complicity with any atrocities, just the war, being a Nazi and being a patriotic German were and still are two different things. There were very few Nazis, but many German's fed up with the way the rest of Europe was treating them.

 

An academic degree is based on reading from various texts, including first hand accounts, all of them researched an peer reviewed.

Just because you have chatted to one person first hand doesn't discount the facts.

 

Man, I wasn't even trying to get into personal family BS. Just trying to correct the mistakes about the armament of the Spitfire!

The problem here is assumption, it was not just my Mother and Father. Both of them came from large, extended families from which they were integral and shared similar beliefs. One was from the southeast near the Austrian border (Hitler birth territory) and the other from the north near the Baltic Sea and Denmark, yet all had the same mentality. They loathed the war and Germany's role in it, hated the Nazis and their control and watched/lived what they believed to be the death of their country, hence why they moved.

No, they weren't part of the atrocities, nor were they part of the NAZI party, but yes, they loved their country and thought it should do better than destroy its self and others.

Yes, Nazis were by far always the minority and Germans had a hard time then which actually allowed the Nazis to gain power.

Analogy: There was a large percentage of Americans that were against the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion/occupation, especially considering the loss of life and economic state at home yet still it happened. If you spoke against the war, what happened? You were labeled as Un-American, not a Patriot and not supporting the Troops! This is a living example of a page out of Goebbels book. It is chilling, go see for yourself.

 

I too have attended higher academics and know exactly how it works, and also that it is not supposed to stop there. Without insult, I have to chide you on your scholastic method! You speak of 'texts, first hand accounts, peer review' yet you casually dismiss 'chatting to one person first hand' as discounting facts? Where do facts come from, the fact factory? What the hell do you think 'first hand accounts' are? Texts are supposed to be an aggregate of those; by discounting one, you discount all. One may hold key information to gain better understanding of an entire perspective or situation. :headwall:

 

Fair enough, but you responded in kind. If you want to let it go here, I'm cool with that. :shrug:

 

 

Yes, basically my whole degree is based on copying many other people in "my own words".

 

And...? :unsure:

 

B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post beastpath! Very interesting & correct on so many points. I also have to side with Precise1 on some points though, history is indeed written by the victors (& often embellished, Caesar's "Gallic Wars is a good example). He is also correct about projectile mass, velocity, etc, being part of the equation & the Sherman being equal or even superior to the short barreled (hence low velocity) guns of the PZKW III & previous models. The PZKW IV was originally intended as an infantry support tank (the PZKW II was intended to engage enemy armor) but in the face of tanks such as the T34 the PZKW III (based on pre war doctrines) was outclassed so the PZKW IV was upgraded with the KwK 40 L/43 anti-tank gun & brought into an anti armor role. However, even the PZKW IV was outclassed by the T34 & KV series of Russian tanks hence the design of my favorite tank of the war, the PZKW V or more commonly the (inspired by the T34) "Panther" tank sporting sloped armor (the first German tank to do so) an excellent high velocity 76.2mm gun, wide tracks (for better cross country mobility), etc. I feel the same way about the Panther as 3rdtimesacharm does about the Corsair & B does about the FW 190. ORGASMIC! :sly:

 

The Panther (along with the Tiger) is one of the tanks B was talking about when he mentioned getting behind the Tank to knock it out. My dad actually drove a couple of Shermans on reconnaissance missions (usually he drove a Bren Gun carrier, also known as a Universal carrier) & was instructed to "get the hell outta there" if he saw a Tiger or Panther. The story goes that the average loss ratio was 3-4 Shermans to knock out 1 Tiger, 2 Shermans to draw the attention of the Tiger, 1 to attack it from the side & 1 to hit it from behind. My dad didn't like the Sherman much, he said they called it "The Ronson" because of it's gasoline engine (most main battle tanks had diesel engines) & the strange habit of washing the inside of the tank with gasoline doused rags to remove the oil & grime. This all made the Sherman go up like a torch when hit by a German high velocity gun such as the 76.2mm or the 88mm. I also talked to a friend of my dads who was a Canadian Army Sherman driver in WWII, he was blinded when his Sherman was knocked out by a frontal shot from an 88mm. The shot went right through the Sherman & blew the motor out of the back, the ammo cooked off, the fuel ignited & Roland was the only one that made it out alive.They thought even he was dead until they noticed him flickering what was left of his eyelids.

 

My dad told me a great story involving a Panther tank, he wrecked a brand new Bren Carrier (he wrecked several during the course of the war) that he'd just picked up from the replacement depot. He was flying down a road (he was a mechanic so he always took the governor off his carriers) & there was a column of Shermans coming the other way with a knocked out Panther on the other side of the road lying half in a ditch. He tried to get between one of the Shermans & the Panther while still going full throttle but the gap was too small & he got jammed between the Sherman & the Panther & wrecked the carrier & got knocked out when the carrier came to a sudden stop & he hit the dash. When he came to he had to walk back to the depot & explain to them how he'd wrecked a brand new carrier within about 10 minutes of picking it up & could he please have another one!! :laugh: :laugh:

 

Yes, exactly, it was the Panther (rather than the Panzer (V)) that I should have said. While no machine is perfect, that one was fairly all around bad arse for the day. The tiger may have been heavier in all respects, that limited it in its roles as well from what I understand. I'm not a historian, much less a military historian, but I enjoy learning, facts and have an interest in this period of history as well.

 

From my understanding, the T34 was a light tank armored to medium level with a big gun that was mass produced which is what led to it's success and place in history. While it had sloped armor, low profile and a big gun, they were poorly build and had major problems with the drive train. I have read somewhere that they were so cramped that if you were over 5'1", you were too big and that most of the crew considered them a death trap if hit (I'll try to dig it up if necessary). Honestly, I think this is what made the T-34 so effective...

In May 1944, the Wehrmacht had only 304 Panthers operating on the Eastern Front, while the Soviets had increased T-34-85 production to 1,200 tanks per month.[43]

No matter how good your sheit is, those are some hard numbers to beat! As my friend Yorgi Chevchuk once said while playing chess when I took a pawn, "No problems, I am Russian, we have more...". ;)

 

Sorry about you dads friend, that is the kind of thing that hurts to hear. Evils of war and all that crap I suppose, but I have long felt that the people who want to wage war should get locked in a room with knives, and open it the next day to see who is so keen for it then...

 

B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

Welcome to NPORA Forums

 

Please register to gain full access to the forum.

Make sure you read the Forum Guidelines and don't forget to post a new intro in the New People Start Here! section, to say hi too everyone.

 

-NPORA

×
×
  • Create New...