capt_starlight

I believe that it was a combination of moss and vines that made it look like the remains of someone hanging from a tree and they assumed that they saw parachute shrouds (more vines). In regard to the differing casualty figures - it depends on your source. Even within the military, war diaries and returns can have different figures at different levels of the conflict. As rich found out (with at least his book on D-Day) battalion returns are not always consolidated by brigades, and brigades by divisions and so up the tree, with any form of accuracy....

Will have to ask Ken Gillespie about his Reading list when in catch with him in September.

So how does this fit with "Uh huh, so I am still safe in asserting USMC innovation in the TK-I phone on the tank, as well as Tk-Inf doctrine? " and the fact that the British were putting purpose built equipment on their tanks from 1941 AND trained with it from the same time period for their Army Tank Battalions ? Or are you only referring to within the US Armed forces ? PS Oz was putting tank phones on their tanks from 1944 at latest and I note that they had to install them on the M1A1 they have just picked up.....

Which is one of the reasons that Coastal Command always circled around the convoy - out of range of any guns that were there. Ship types tended to shoot first and enquire about the nationality later. AFAIK there were specified patrol and transit zones for the aircraft over the beach heads and over the water to try an minimise "own goals". They had learnt a bit from "Husky".... Drat misspellings!

So when did the Marines start using (as distinct from trialling) infantry telephones on tanks ?

No 19 Wireless set did not enter full scale production until 1940 and not introduced into vehicles until after May/June 1940. Therefore the ability for infantry/tank communication was limited (at best). Army Tank Battalions were formed on or converted to Churchills from 1941 and the existing Matilda equipped units were refitted to more modern standards. WS no 19 arrived in the Middle East with Operation Tiger (May 1941) to the same effect - Army Tank Battalions became available to actually work with the Infantry and equipped to do so......

In the UK (as the No19 set was not widespread until after Dunkirk). In North Africa after "Tiger" I believe (for similar reasons).

Ta muchly....

Current Chief of (Australian) Army reading list is at => http://www.defence.gov.au/Army/lwsc/docs/sp_313.pdf Forward into Battle: Fighting Tactics from Waterloo to the Near Future by Paddy Griffiths is the only one of his works on there and it is at "Soldier" level.

His arguments directly contradict your assertion. While the Germans created temporary technological superiority (new forms of horror) they consistently failed to establish superiority in techniques for the use of war gases. The Special Brigade RAE and the RA established a definite superiority in how to deliver it, when to deliver it and what quantities and types to achieve superiority. A livens barrage, gas "beam" attacks, mixtures of smoke and gas rounds for barrages, etc were all developed to the nth degree by the British (and the Germans never could find an answer to the Livens Projector). The effectives of the British Small Box Respirator in comparison to its German equivalent (and that got worse as the war dragged on) helped as well. There was one piece of frightfulness (name escapes me and I am at work) which the Germans deployed in MAR18, designed to penetrate existing gas masks being too fine for the then filters. It was a powder that they assumed the round exploding would form an sufficient aerosol (it didn't). The British recovered it, worked out how it was supposed to work (works best when burnt as a "candle"), developed aerial and artillery delivery systems and was manufacturing thousands of tons of it in time for Plan 1919. The Germans had not developed a counter measure by the end of the war for their "horror". The SBR was being upgraded to cope. And then you can have a read of A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman and works of a similar nature....

Army Tank Battalions were tasked with support of Infantry. Given the vehicle speed, they were well practised in Infantry/Tank Co-operation just that they were used as substitute tank regiments in Armoured Divisions because of the shortage of the latter. Churchills for instance were designed, used and tasked for infantry support from the start (when they were not used to base "Funnies" on.....

Actually I think the British beat you here (at least). The Wireless Set No 19 was fitted for a telephone (initially as a remote control for the main set and then as an infantry/tank phone) from 1940 onwards. Fitted to Churchill from start and later Matilda and Valentines IIRC. Italians were well ahead of the Marines here with the L33 Lf from 1935 (and then L6/40 tanks in 1941) followed by the Germans with the Panzer II Flamm from JAN40. For the Allies I think the Russians have it with the KhT-26 (OT-26)from 1933. Churchill Oke predate the first (AFAIK)Marine flame tanks - 24 M3 Stan conversions created from Ronson kits from Canada.

Do you have a web pointer for that request (with that terminology) - would love to keep it for future reference. Cromwell abolished the "Royal Army" (through its defeat in the myriad English Civil Wars) and made sure it was subordinate to Parliament requiring the annual Army Acts to ensure financing. I can remember an interesting show in the A(ustralian)BC concerning a fictional military putsch in Australia at the time of "The Dismissal". A very skilful blend of real footage and actors that showed how it might happen and how little there actually is to stop it from occurring in real life....

An oft talked about claim but where did it come from ?

Burma - recce, raids and amphibious operations - yes. SEA (modern Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore) - raids, recce - yes. Amphibious operations - doubtful. The only RAN vessel to carry RM (to my knowledge) until the arrival of the BPF was possibly HMAS Shropshire and she took part in the landings at Arawe and Cape Gloucester, seizure of the Admiralty Islands, Hollandia and Humboldt Bay, Wakde / Sarmi / Biak, Aitape and Cape Sansapor, Morotai, Leyte and Lingayan, Brunei and Balikpapan. Who knows what her (putative) RM detachment got up to..... I think in general they occupied the same role in the Pacific as the US Marines did in Europe and Med - interested spectators in the main as far as engaging the enemy more closely than their main armament would allow .