Jump to content

capt_starlight

Banned
  • Posts

    588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by capt_starlight

  1. 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....
  2. Will have to ask Ken Gillespie about his Reading list when in catch with him in September.
  3. 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.....
  4. 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!
  5. So when did the Marines start using (as distinct from trialling) infantry telephones on tanks ?
  6. 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......
  7. In the UK (as the No19 set was not widespread until after Dunkirk). In North Africa after "Tiger" I believe (for similar reasons).
  8. 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.
  9. 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....
  10. 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.....
  11. 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.
  12. 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....
  13. An oft talked about claim but where did it come from ?
  14. 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 .
  15. Have never written anything for publication but have assisted (and been credited) for research and other assistance (proof reading, reading for accuracy of content, etc) for several publications on the Great War (seems to be my current area of fascination) on the Western Front and Middle East. Looking into Mespot now for another writer...... (And having seen this thread for the first time in many a year, I have already placed orders for some of the books if only coz of the quality of argument by the authors herein this forum)
  16. Seems there were more from the Australian Army at Normandy than US Marines....
  17. Just think of it as something designed to confuse the uninitiated. There is an RAF and a RN (like there is an RAAF or a RAN) - they came from the crown. But the British Army (and the Australian Army) owes their existence to Parliament. The individual regiments were contracted to the crown by their owners (their colonels) (and there is private enterprise/capitalism at work something that should be dear to a conservative's heart). Like the regiments, the corps are given the Royal prefix after periods of distinguished service. AAC (AAAvn) do not seem to have yet "qualified" or their Colonels-in-Chief are a bit slack in not applying for the necessary Letters Patent.
  18. Colin, have you perused Seeking victory on the Western Front: the British army and chemical warfare in World War I by Albert Palazzo ?
  19. In Australia the copper could actually be the one breaking the law in that circumstance. See above. Under theory of proportionate force you would not be in the right (even though he/or she - the police - could have been breaking the law).
  20. [quote name='aevans' date='07 June 2010 - 1624 PM' timestamp='1275888270' post='780760'] 1. If you think of it as the "military", as in just another corporate entity with a somewhat different product, I can see why you might say that. If you look on it as the [i]service[/i], whichis what it is, then it doesn't reflect civilian life that much at all. [/quote] The military is a corporate entity but a slightly different one from say the police (both incur personal danger and can inflict damage just the scale is different)and different again from most others (though there are dangers associated with many occupations they do not usually go about armed and confront armed individuals or groups who may not have happy thoughts on their minds). The idea that the military is removed from society leads to coups - it is part of the society, draws sustenance from it and is actually its reason to exist. It is much of a service as the police or the "firies" or other emergency services or indeed may parts of society. Each have their own ethos and rules, but exist to serve the society. The idea of a military elite died with the [i]levée en masse[/i] though some countries failed to recognise it to the suffering of many.... [quote name='aevans' date='07 June 2010 - 1624 PM' timestamp='1275888270' post='780760'] 2. Training and expertise are wasted every day by involuntary separations for all sorts of reasons. It's not like the rules aren't plain enough. You break them, you demonstrate in the clearest way possible that you're not the kind of person the service needs. The resources were wasted on you from the beginning. [/quote] Well then, next time someone is "....absent from a place of parade appointed by OC or CO..." they will suffer the penalty of "separation from service" as they are obviously demonstrated "...in the clearest way possible that you're not the kind of person the service needs..."
  21. Change can be brought on by many things - from political and social imperatives to technological movements. Some countries realised that they suffered problems with finding the "right" kind of manpower and saw the lack of logic in sidling 50% of the population (women). There has been a similar reaction to the illogical situation of homosexuals - the 'don't ask, don't tell" is neither "fish nor fowl" and manages to offend just about everyone. Has it ever been challenged in the US Supreme Court out of a matter of interest ? As to whether you should be 'having it off" with a subordinate. It does not matter whether it is a 'life or death" (and that situation is not confined to just the military) or not. I agree you don't involve your subordinate BUT you must be in the open and it must be managed. It has and will occur in civilian life and the military reflects civil life in many ways. In the any situation it must be handled such that the lower "rank" is not in a position to use that influence. In all situations, you cannot avoid a difference in "ranks" occurring - husbands and wives are not promoted equally so there will be such a situation to be managed. It seems that to avoid it overall (in your opinion), once one gets "involved" (even at equal "ranks" because of the potential for conflict) there is an automatic either one gets out of military or the t'other. Rather a waste of training and expertise ?
  22. First time I heard that the Royal Australian Armoured Corps were operating Apaches ?!? Wonder if the AAAvn Corps knows they are doing it ?
  23. Interesting concept (and a more realistic one). What was the involvement of al-Qaeda London Bombings except post event posturing (along with a number of other groups) ?
  24. As is the ability to "police the world on own" and the moon is made of green cheese. However, it is also not an excuse for denying that change can be beneficial and is needed on occasion else we would not have the technology to have this discourse.
×
×
  • Create New...