Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

importing Shermans and US military equipment

Expand Messages
  • billbeadling@aol.com
    It is my understanding that it is still possible to import US Military equipment if you have a bill of sale from the government that you purchase it from. What
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      It is my understanding that it is still possible to import US Military
      equipment if you have a bill of sale from the government that you
      purchase it from. What is necessary to make it legal is that the
      government you purchase it from must have bought and paid the US
      government for the equipment. If it is a lend-lease item, then
      technically it is still owned by the US government, so it can not be
      legally sold by the country which has it. I personally know a
      individual that imported 2 White halftracks about 8 years ago from
      Belgium and they had been purchased by the Belgium government, so he
      had a bill of sale. It took a long time to do all the paper work, but
      he got them in. Later he tried to import a 2 1/2 ton truck from France
      and he did not have a bill of sale since it was a lend-lease truck,
      well it was confiscated by US Customs. it can be done, but it's very
      difficult
    • Ray Merriam
      Some of you may know that the U.S. Navy jealously guards all of its crashed aircraft as still being their property. More than one recovered Navy aircraft wreck
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Some of you may know that the U.S. Navy jealously guards all of its crashed
        aircraft as still being their property. More than one recovered Navy
        aircraft wreck has been "appropriated" by the Navy - and some after the
        aircraft was restored. Some of the aircraft on display at Navy installations
        and museums has been "acquired" this way.

        But here's a little known fact about U.S. Air Force aircraft: Because a fire
        that occurred in the early 1960s destroyed most of the records of Air Force
        aircraft prior to the date of the fire, the Air Force simply said the hell
        with it and doesn't care what anyone does with any crashed (or otherwise
        abandoned or "discharged") Air Force aircraft made prior to that date. The
        only caveat is if any human remains are found at a crash site, the recovery
        team must inform the Air Force who will send a team to investigate and
        remove any remains.

        Sincerely,

        Ray Merriam
        Owner
        Merriam Press
        133 Elm St Apt 3R
        Bennington VT 05201-2250 USA

        Phone: 802-447-0313
        E-mail: ray@... or merriampress@...
        Web site: http://www.merriam-press.com

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <billbeadling@...>
        To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, 03 March 2009 11:06 PM
        Subject: [G104] importing Shermans and US military equipment


        > It is my understanding that it is still possible to import US Military
        > equipment if you have a bill of sale from the government that you
        > purchase it from. What is necessary to make it legal is that the
        > government you purchase it from must have bought and paid the US
        > government for the equipment. If it is a lend-lease item, then
        > technically it is still owned by the US government, so it can not be
        > legally sold by the country which has it. I personally know a
        > individual that imported 2 White halftracks about 8 years ago from
        > Belgium and they had been purchased by the Belgium government, so he
        > had a bill of sale. It took a long time to do all the paper work, but
        > he got them in. Later he tried to import a 2 1/2 ton truck from France
        > and he did not have a bill of sale since it was a lend-lease truck,
        > well it was confiscated by US Customs. it can be done, but it's very
        > difficult
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > **Please trim your replies**
        > **Do not post in HTML or "Rich Text" mode**
        > **Plain ASCII Text only please**
        > **Attachments will be stripped**
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > Sherman Register
        > http://www.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > G104 - the Sherman Register mailing list
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/G104
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Bob Smart
        ... I think there may be a caveat to that Air Force policy though. I believe that the Air Force (or some other part of the US Gov t) will actively fight to
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Merriam" <merriampress@...> wrote:
          >
          > Some of you may know that the U.S. Navy jealously guards all of its crashed
          > aircraft as still being their property. More than one recovered Navy
          > aircraft wreck has been "appropriated" by the Navy - and some after the
          > aircraft was restored. Some of the aircraft on display at Navy installations
          > and museums has been "acquired" this way.
          >
          > But here's a little known fact about U.S. Air Force aircraft: Because a fire
          > that occurred in the early 1960s destroyed most of the records of Air Force
          > aircraft prior to the date of the fire, the Air Force simply said the hell
          > with it and doesn't care what anyone does with any crashed (or otherwise
          > abandoned or "discharged") Air Force aircraft made prior to that date. The
          > only caveat is if any human remains are found at a crash site, the recovery
          > team must inform the Air Force who will send a team to investigate and
          > remove any remains.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          >
          > Ray Merriam
          I think there may be a caveat to that Air Force policy though. I believe that the Air Force (or some other part of the US Gov't) will actively fight to keep any Jet combat aircraft from being returned to flyable status. I remember when an F-104 was returned to flying status from scrapped parts they had meticulas rcords that showed it was a Candair assembled aircraft that had not been built using Military assistance funds. I believe most flying Sabre jets are also Canadair built planes that use a Canadian engine.

          Bob Smart (bsmart@...)
        • Bob Smart
          ... I remember being told that in WWII there was a federal law passed that specifically did not allow reimportation of any trucks that were exported or
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In G104@yahoogroups.com, billbeadling@... wrote:
            >
            > It is my understanding that it is still possible to import US Military
            > equipment if you have a bill of sale from the government that you
            > purchase it from. What is necessary to make it legal is that the
            > government you purchase it from must have bought and paid the US
            > government for the equipment. If it is a lend-lease item, then
            > technically it is still owned by the US government, so it can not be
            > legally sold by the country which has it. I personally know a
            > individual that imported 2 White halftracks about 8 years ago from
            > Belgium and they had been purchased by the Belgium government, so he
            > had a bill of sale. It took a long time to do all the paper work, but
            > he got them in. Later he tried to import a 2 1/2 ton truck from France
            > and he did not have a bill of sale since it was a lend-lease truck,
            > well it was confiscated by US Customs. it can be done, but it's very
            > difficult
            >

            I remember being told that in WWII there was a federal law passed that specifically did not allow reimportation of any trucks that were exported or deployed overseas by the U.S. Government. This included trucks used by the U.S. military or provided to any other government. The intent was to protect the truck manufacturing industry from being flooded with surplus vehicles after the war was over.

            Bob Smart (bsmart@...)
          • Ray Merriam
            Bob, here s the official USAF policy: 12. Downed aircraft. Aircraft that crashed before 19 November 1961, when a fire destroyed the pertinent Air Force
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 5, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Bob, here's the official USAF policy:

              12. Downed aircraft. Aircraft that crashed before 19 November 1961, when a
              fire destroyed the pertinent Air Force records, and that remain wholly or
              partially unrecovered, are considered formally abandoned. The Air Force
              neither maintains title to, nor has property interest in, these aircraft.
              The authority for access to, and recovery of, these aircraft, as well as
              liability for damages associated with their recovery, are matters to be
              resolved between persons seeking recovery and landowners of the wreckage
              sites.

              The Canadair aircraft probably don't fall under that policy since they were
              built in Canada for the RCAF.

              Further clarification:

              The USAF further maintains that the "Sunken Military Craft Act" (Public Law
              108-375-OCT. 28, 2004 118 STAT. 2095) affirming government ownership of
              sunken ships and aircraft does not apply because USAF abandonment of
              pre-1961 aircraft wrecks pre-dates passage of the legislation. Whether USAF
              policy is in accordance with U.S. federal law has never been tested, but the
              important point with regard to the Welsh P-38 is that the United States
              asserts no claim of ownership. Title to the aircraft would therefore appear
              to be entirely a matter for determination according to the laws of the
              United Kingdom.

              The above paragraph is from:

              http://www.tighar.org/Projects/P38/welshownership.htm

              Which covers the recent discovery of a P-38F that crashed on a beach in
              England during the war and was eventually buried in sand by the tides. It
              became visible when the tides carried away enough of the sand. However, the
              British government has laws which prevent wreck recovery without going
              through legal channels, regardless of who originally owned the aircraft when
              it crashed.

              The Sunken Military Craft Act is what helps protect U.S. warships from being
              vandalized as they are considered burial sitesdue to the fact that most such
              ships went down with sailors and others trapped on board. That act is also
              how the U.S. Navy also retains ownership of all crashed/sunken Navy/Marine
              aircraft.

              Not long ago, Papua New Guinea stopped the export of a USAAF B-17 found in
              the jungle. The aircraft had been recovered by an American group and was
              about to be placed on a ship when the government stepped in (one as to
              wonder if they waited until the last minute so as not to have to spend the
              money themselves on the recovery). PNG claims ownership of all wrecks in and
              around (i.e., sunken wrecks, including ships and vehicles as well as
              aircraft) PNG.

              This sort of action by countries is fairly recent, probably due to the fact
              that the items, especially once restored, can be worth thousands, or even
              hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

              Of course, getting an aircraft wreck flying again has far more hurdles than
              a vehicle, and a variety of government agencies can be involved regardless
              of who built and operated the aircraft.

              Ray



              > I think there may be a caveat to that Air Force policy though. I believe
              > that the Air Force (or some other part of the US Gov't) will actively
              > fight to keep any Jet combat aircraft from being returned to flyable
              > status. I remember when an F-104 was returned to flying status from
              > scrapped parts they had meticulas rcords that showed it was a Candair
              > assembled aircraft that had not been built using Military assistance
              > funds. I believe most flying Sabre jets are also Canadair built planes
              > that use a Canadian engine.
              >
              > Bob Smart (bsmart@...)
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.