Picture of the day

[Dark Alley Dan]

The Tempo:

Dual 2 stroke engines, four-wheel steering...

[youtube]6hQaoE0iIZ8[/youtube]

 

[RRCo.]

Interesting concept. The Daimler Scout Car got away with four wheel steering. The twin engine configuration has some definite advantages: weight distribution, probably fuel economy, redundancy... German military acquisitions seem to have been as political as anyone else's, so no surprise this vehicle didn't get a fair shake.

ht tp://hooniverse.com/2012/05/18/1936-tempo-1200-is-this-the-most-capable-pre-war-german-vehicle/

 

[smellie]

Regarding the previous discussion, an excellent book to pick up (if you can find a copy) is FROM PRIVATE TO FIELD-MARSHAL by Sir William Robertson.

Came out in late 1914 or early 1915, was quite popular. My copy is one of the (several) 1915 printings.

"Auld Wullie" was the C-in-C at the outbreak of the Great War and was the first man ever to do it on his own merits: absolute bottom to absolute top.

A fascinating read.

 

[D-BOMB]

PM sent good sir!

Let me know if you want any information on him as I volunteer at the 26th Field Regt RCA- 12th MB Dragoons musuem.

 

[plinker 777]

When you have say 400 men out of a regiment with self-inflicted wounds in a short time you have men who cannot stand the conditions they are in.

Those are the historical facts. The explanations are no concern of mine; you are at liberty to investigate the matter and draw your own conclusions.

In fact the British officers and authorities were at some pains to conceal the matter at the time and there were few prosecutions.

IMO it simply shows the level of your conditioning, or else your agenda, that you get all antsy about this and start talking about "entire races" and otherwise trying to distort what I said.

Again, check the facts for yourself.

Hmmm, well,. My conditioning is harder than most I've met and I have absolutely no agenda so I won't respond to that, I certainly wasn't getting antsy about the issue in the least, I will however apologize if you feel that I in anyway attempted to distort what you have said, as I too take exception to any of my own statements that are either distorted or taken out of context. If I came across like that, I'm sorry, It wasn't my intension.
As far as checking the facts for myself, I'll say this. During a time when clear cases of shell shock were executed for cowardice in the face of the enemy by a firing squad made up of the individuals own regiment, I find it hard to believe that 400 Indians (colonials no less) were documented to have self inflicted wounds and weren't shot on the spot or charged, trial and then executed...I can find no reference to these 400. If you would be so kind as to point me in the proper direction you would have my thanks.

 

[bellero]

Regarding the previous discussion, an excellent book to pick up (if you can find a copy) is FROM PRIVATE TO FIELD-MARSHAL by Sir William Robertson.

Came out in late 1914 or early 1915, was quite popular. My copy is one of the (several) 1915 printings.

"Auld Wullie" was the C-in-C at the outbreak of the Great War and was the first man ever to do it on his own merits: absolute bottom to absolute top.

A fascinating read.

I always thought that officer who came from the ranks were better than academy formed officers. Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt General Otter accomplished this feat before Robertson (private to general)? General Krueger also accomplished this in the US Army

 

[smellie]

A General is one thing, a Field-Marshal is quite another.

A General is a Very Important Dude. (I met one, once. General Rockingham actually noticed that I lived. I am still in a state of shock.)

A Field-Marshal, essentially, has his own WAR. He commands an entire segment of the War Effort and the Generals scurry to carry out HIS orders.

In North Africa in WW2, the Field Marshal ran the entire campaign. EVERYTHING and EVERYONE reported to him. Same in NW Europe: Monty was THE Man.

To HAVE a Field Marshal you have to have a War in the first place. It is exclusively a Wartime rank; when the Peace is settled, the Field-Marshals generally revert back to Lieutenant-General. A Lieutenant-General is an officer of General's rank who is a LIEUTENANT (helper, assistant, gopher) to the Field-Marshal, who has been appointed by the Monarch to run the Monarch's War.

Remember, our rank structure is different from the American. We start with a Brigadier, who runs a brigade. We then go to a Major-General, who is a BIG General ("major" meaning "important" from Latin); he usually runs a division. Next up is straight General: the guy who can run anything.... and generally runs a CORPS. And only then do we get to the Field-Marshal's helper: the Lieutenant-General. If he is in an independent command, he will usually run an ARMY. Field-Marshals can run GROUPS of ARMIES if they have to. The precise scope of the rank is determined by the duties/ responsibilities at hand and is at the pleasure of the reigning Monarch. A Field-Marshal can be replaced should the war situation require. They can even tell the RSM what to do!!!!!!!!

Robertson was the FIRST man to make the entire climb. To date, no-one has followed in his footsteps. Robertson retired in 1920, serving through the entire War in one capacity or another.

The American equivalent is General of the Army (5 stars arranged in a circle): a 5-star General in an Army in which 4 stars normally is tops. The name Eisenhower comes to mind.

The Germans had their own idea of a Field-Marshal, made it a regular rank. The result was that you could have half a dozen in a single room. We never had more than ONE for an entire campaign.

Hope this helps.

 

[Ballsofice154]

Regarding the previous discussion, an excellent book to pick up (if you can find a copy) is FROM PRIVATE TO FIELD-MARSHAL by Sir William Robertson.

Came out in late 1914 or early 1915, was quite popular. My copy is one of the (several) 1915 printings.

"Auld Wullie" was the C-in-C at the outbreak of the Great War and was the first man ever to do it on his own merits: absolute bottom to absolute top.

A fascinating read.

If your really cheap you can get it online via archives.org under the text section, just search the title and it will pop up.

 

[john@]

Very cool, but I can see why it did not get adopted by the military. Two stroke engines are not efficient, they waste a lot of fuel. Two of them would be even more wasteful, although the '2WD one engine only' mode would help in that respect, but then your pulling the weight of the car with a small two cylinder engine. It would still not be efficient. Also, as mentioned before, mechanics nightmare, stocking duplicate spare parts etc... and from the videos, yes it looks nimble and mobile, but also I wonder how it would handle at highway speeds. It looks somewhat unstable in that it bounces around a lot. I suspect it would not be that safe.

Interesting concept. The Daimler Scout Car got away with four wheel steering. The twin engine configuration has some definite advantages: weight distribution, probably fuel economy, redundancy... German military acquisitions seem to have been as political as anyone else's, so no surprise this vehicle didn't get a fair shake.

ht tp://hooniverse.com/2012/05/18/1936-tempo-1200-is-this-the-most-capable-pre-war-german-vehicle/

 

[mikerock]

Unit marked PPCLI and 48th Highlanders of Canada. Both of these units were engaged in the 2nd Battle of Ypres, which I hope I do not have to detail in this forum!

 

[mikerock]

 

[smellie]

Oh......... my............ blessed............ word!

You actually OWN that rifle?

I think that one is about as close to the Holy Grail as ever was "Made In Canada".

It just says so MUCH.......

Too bad the files have been weeded so very thin. When I was in, we signed for our issue C1s BY SERIAL NUMBERS: our names and their serials, on the same paper.

The course of Service for THIS rifle could be utterly boggling.......

 

[DOOK]

Geez Mike, you almost made Smellie curse. That really must be some rifle!

 

[RRCo.]

Yes, what a piece. The PPCLI turned in their Rosses for SMLEs before they left England. Looks like it was probably in France with the 48th
Battalion though.

Very cool, but I can see why it did not get adopted by the military. Two stroke engines are not efficient, they waste a lot of fuel. Two of them would be even more wasteful, although the '2WD one engine only' mode would help in that respect, but then your pulling the weight of the car with a small two cylinder engine. It would still not be efficient. Also, as mentioned before, mechanics nightmare, stocking duplicate spare parts etc... and from the videos, yes it looks nimble and mobile, but also I wonder how it would handle at highway speeds. It looks somewhat unstable in that it bounces around a lot. I suspect it would not be that safe.

I suspect the manufacturers wouldn't have bothered if they couldn't meet the standards laid down by the Wehrmacht, who probably had a written standard for just about everything(!) We all know about the cultural love of complexity, so I don't think that would have been a factor at all; look at the equipment and the extreme variety of equipment, that was adopted. Is the Kubelwagen so much better? Probably not, but it did have Herr Doktor Porsche in the driver's seat. Highway speeds? The speed of your average military convoy was 30Kmh or less. More often it was the walking speed of a horse; the Germany Army was mostly horse drawn until at least 1943, maybe later. One thing against the traverse leaf spring suspension is the tire wear created by the extreme camber when the vehicle is not loaded, but military vehicles are usually over-loaded, not under-loaded. There's an owner's club in Germany apparently, I wonder what they say about this?

 

[twincamharley]

......

 

[Rule 303]

A General is one thing, a Field-Marshal is quite another.

A General is a Very Important Dude. (I met one, once. General Rockingham actually noticed that I lived. I am still in a state of shock.)

A Field-Marshal, essentially, has his own WAR. He commands an entire segment of the War Effort and the Generals scurry to carry out HIS orders.

In North Africa in WW2, the Field Marshal ran the entire campaign. EVERYTHING and EVERYONE reported to him. Same in NW Europe: Monty was THE Man.

To HAVE a Field Marshal you have to have a War in the first place. It is exclusively a Wartime rank; when the Peace is settled, the Field-Marshals generally revert back to Lieutenant-General. A Lieutenant-General is an officer of General's rank who is a LIEUTENANT (helper, assistant, gopher) to the Field-Marshal, who has been appointed by the Monarch to run the Monarch's War.

Remember, our rank structure is different from the American. We start with a Brigadier, who runs a brigade. We then go to a Major-General, who is a BIG General ("major" meaning "important" from Latin); he usually runs a division. Next up is straight General: the guy who can run anything.... and generally runs a CORPS. And only then do we get to the Field-Marshal's helper: the Lieutenant-General. If he is in an independent command, he will usually run an ARMY. Field-Marshals can run GROUPS of ARMIES if they have to. The precise scope of the rank is determined by the duties/ responsibilities at hand and is at the pleasure of the reigning Monarch. A Field-Marshal can be replaced should the war situation require. They can even tell the RSM what to do!!!!!!!!

Robertson was the FIRST man to make the entire climb. To date, no-one has followed in his footsteps. Robertson retired in 1920, serving through the entire War in one capacity or another.

The American equivalent is General of the Army (5 stars arranged in a circle): a 5-star General in an Army in which 4 stars normally is tops. The name Eisenhower comes to mind.

The Germans had their own idea of a Field-Marshal, made it a regular rank. The result was that you could have half a dozen in a single room. We never had more than ONE for an entire campaign.

Hope this helps.

Smellie....small corrections are to be noted:

Monty wasn't promoted to FM until 1 Sep 1944, so AFAIK, no FM in command in North Africa, similarly with NW Europe until that date.

Brigadier=Brigade

Maj Gen=Div

Lt Gen=Corps

Gen=Army

FM=Army Group.

 

[RRCo.]

Hmmm, well,. My conditioning is harder than most I've met and I have absolutely no agenda so I won't respond to that, I certainly wasn't getting antsy about the issue in the least, I will however apologize if you feel that I in anyway attempted to distort what you have said, as I too take exception to any of my own statements that are either distorted or taken out of context. If I came across like that, I'm sorry, It wasn't my intension.

As far as checking the facts for myself, I'll say this. During a time when clear cases of shell shock were executed for cowardice in the face of the enemy by a firing squad made up of the individuals own regiment, I find it hard to believe that 400 Indians (colonials no less) were documented to have self inflicted wounds and weren't shot on the spot or charged, trial and then executed...I can find no reference to these 400. If you would be so kind as to point me in the proper direction you would have my thanks.

Apologies if I was misreading your intentions.

"The first hut I had was occupied by Sikhs, and they all had wounds through the palms of their hands, and we thought, "This was very extraordinary, the only part of their body that was exposed to the enemy was their hands," and we came to the conclusion they must have held their hands up above the trench so they could be shot through the hands and get invalided home, and that was obviously what had occurred. But never any charge was brought against them, of course. But we formed our own opinion that it must have been that. There were thirty in my ward and they all had hand wounds, all through the palm of the hand. The conclusion was pretty obvious that they had been putting up their hands to be shot at."

Capt. Maberly Esler, Royal Army Medical Corps quoted in "Forgotten Voices of the Great War",2003 by Max Arthur, page 88

By 3 November the Indian Corps had suffered 1,989 casualties, about 65% of which were self-inflicted wounds, not always punished by court martial.

"Ypres, The First Battle, 1914", 2006 ed., by Ian Beckett.

(General Sir James) Willcocks had been publicly insulted by (Field Marshal Sir John) French on 2 November 1914 when he (W) went to GHQ to explain the extent of self-inflicted wounds within the Indian Corps. He told French that his Corps was in danger of imminent collapse; when he told French that it "might go at any moment" (meaning give way) and he asked for the Corps to be stiffened by two British brigades, French answered that if they must go, they could go into the sea or to hell.

On this same day Willcocks apparently had two men executed for self infliction of wounds. Executions under authority of the Indian Army Act seem to be excluded from the statistics and the concerns of the SAD movement, although the 1915 Singapore executions are well enough known due to their particular scale and unpleasantness.

Later that month he received information that the King was desirous of awarding a VC to an Indian; Willcocks simply replied that "there is no-one deserving of such a high honour." In Jan 1915 he sacked one of his two divisional commanders and four of his six brigade commanders.

ht tp://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=202374

The fact is that there were and are a whole slough of political issues around this matter. The British didn't want to give Germans any reason to claim that the Indians would not fight for the Empire, nor did they want to demoralize the army by admitting what was going on. If it got out in India that conditions were so bad recruiting would have declined dramatically. The British officers of the Indian Army often didn't want to admit the problem to themselves or anyone else for obvious reasons. Lots of complications then and still a touchy subject for some people.

 

[Gibbs505]

All I can tell you is that all the soldiers who I know from when I was growing up in New Zealand had the highest respect for the Indian forces that they fought alongside.

 

[plinker 777]

Apologies if I was misreading your intentions.

Capt. Maberly Esler, Royal Army Medical Corps quoted in "Forgotten Voices of the Great War",2003 by Max Arthur, page 88


"Ypres, The First Battle, 1914", 2006 ed., by Ian Beckett.


ht tp://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=202374

The fact is that there were and are a whole slough of political issues around this matter. The British didn't want to give Germans any reason to claim that the Indians would not fight for the Empire, nor did they want to demoralize the army by admitting what was going on. If it got out in India that conditions were so bad recruiting would have declined dramatically. The British officers of the Indian Army often didn't want to admit the problem to themselves or anyone else for obvious reasons. Lots of complications then and still a touchy subject for some people.

Thank you for the education.

 

[points]

I love how you can read the history on the butt of your rifle. Here's my #1. PPCLI, COTC and others. What is the RA over 22? I don't know that one

Then there is a 5 GA over 21. Another I don't know.