Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
Ross wood derailment....let me help
Oh Klunk... you are a helpless glutton....
If you ever want to sell one... lol.
Sorry boss...I CAN get ammo for these....!
I recently read a book by Peter Hataway Capstick titled Warrior, The legend of Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen One of the chapter talks about the battle of Tanga in East Africa during WWI where 8000 British army Indian troops were defeated by less than 1000 Germans and Askaris. Col Meinhertzhagen explains how he even had to shoot two Indian Rajputs under his command to "encourage" them to fight, killing one and wounding the other one in the process.
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.
Looks like 5th(?) Garrison Artillery too. There's also a large "R.A." struck out so perhaps the rifle was issued to the Royal Garrison Artillery first. They left Canada in 1906 I think it was and since they left their guns behind, maybe they left their rifles too. In fact I've seen a photo of them marching to docks to embark for the UK without rifles!
Last edited:
Tanga.
The "Battle of the Bees".
Tanga finished Aitken, although it was not ALL his fault. You can't just park an obvious invasion fleet offshore and sit there until the (extremely competent) German C.O. comes ripping down the railroad from the interior.... especially not after the Navy had come ashore and demanded that the enemy surrender, then spent the following days sweeping for non-existent mines. Aitken never commanded again. Wapshare, commanding a good chunk of the Indian Army contingent, was named in rather a saucy song and spent the rest of his life trying to clear his name.
The invading "British" force was overwhelmingly brown Indians. The defending "German" force was about 95% Black. No-one can say they were not good soldiers. After Tanga, once the Indians got their war footing right, they fought well through the appalling "Bush War" which ensued for the next 2 years, working with the King's African Rifles (nearly all OR were Black, with British officers) and troops actually pulled from the European theatre. The "Germans" fought well and turned up to surrender in good order at Abercorn, Rhodesia on November 25, 1918: two full weeks after the war had ended in Europe.
Tanga cost the defending Kaiserlich Schutztruppe 16 Europeans and 55 Africans killed in the action, a total of 76 wounded, for a grand total of 147 casualties.
It cost the British a confirmed 360 KIA and 487 WIA, with German estimates running as high as 2,000 altogether.
In the end the tiny German force was defeated by more than 180,000 Allied troops at an expense to the British alone of 72,000,000 pounds Sterling, roughly $22 BILLION in today's money. This was precisely what the German commander, General von Lettow-Vorbeck wanted to happen; all he wanted to do was draw men and materiel away from the European Theatre.
There are a surprising number of good books about the East African campaign, including the memoirs of the German commander and a book by Meinertzhagen showing the British side of the story. Perhaps the most engaging is "On to Kilimanjaro" (1963) by Brian Gardner. Your local second-hand bookstore can get you a copy.
The "Battle of the Bees".
Tanga finished Aitken, although it was not ALL his fault. You can't just park an obvious invasion fleet offshore and sit there until the (extremely competent) German C.O. comes ripping down the railroad from the interior.... especially not after the Navy had come ashore and demanded that the enemy surrender, then spent the following days sweeping for non-existent mines. Aitken never commanded again. Wapshare, commanding a good chunk of the Indian Army contingent, was named in rather a saucy song and spent the rest of his life trying to clear his name.
The invading "British" force was overwhelmingly brown Indians. The defending "German" force was about 95% Black. No-one can say they were not good soldiers. After Tanga, once the Indians got their war footing right, they fought well through the appalling "Bush War" which ensued for the next 2 years, working with the King's African Rifles (nearly all OR were Black, with British officers) and troops actually pulled from the European theatre. The "Germans" fought well and turned up to surrender in good order at Abercorn, Rhodesia on November 25, 1918: two full weeks after the war had ended in Europe.
Tanga cost the defending Kaiserlich Schutztruppe 16 Europeans and 55 Africans killed in the action, a total of 76 wounded, for a grand total of 147 casualties.
It cost the British a confirmed 360 KIA and 487 WIA, with German estimates running as high as 2,000 altogether.
In the end the tiny German force was defeated by more than 180,000 Allied troops at an expense to the British alone of 72,000,000 pounds Sterling, roughly $22 BILLION in today's money. This was precisely what the German commander, General von Lettow-Vorbeck wanted to happen; all he wanted to do was draw men and materiel away from the European Theatre.
There are a surprising number of good books about the East African campaign, including the memoirs of the German commander and a book by Meinertzhagen showing the British side of the story. Perhaps the most engaging is "On to Kilimanjaro" (1963) by Brian Gardner. Your local second-hand bookstore can get you a copy.
The nice thing about Wiki is that if something is grossly wrong it usually gets corrected fairly quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tanga Looks like the Gurkhas and the British troops did well...
Seems Meinertzhagen felt Smuts led them on a wild goose chase that Smith-Dorrien would have quickly put a stop to had he been appointed to command instead of Smuts. Makes you wonder if old Smuts had some other irons in the fire! As former Boer Kommando leader he should have been well up on counter-insurgency tactics.
Last edited:
When I used the figure of 180,000 Allied troops in the Bush War, I did not mean to imply that they were all there at the same time. They were not. Casualties would have been rotated out, fresh men brought in. The TOTAL was 180,000.
The "Germans", on the other hand, had very few replacements, apart from part of the "Koenigsberg" crew.
"Those are some interesting scars you have there, Trooper. Machine-gun?"
"No, Sir. Mauled by a Lion. The little ones on me ankle is from a Snake."
"Hmmm....'Normal Hazards of Service', I would call it. No Wound Stripe for YOUR sleeve!"
"But it were a GERMAN Lion, Sir. Come at us from Fritz's line, it did."
"Allright, you can keep the Wound Stripe. Did it roar in German?"
"No, Sir, it just tried to eat me. I think Fritz must be running short on supplies."
"Ah! Vital intelligence! Get you a Mention in Dispatches, that will, Trooper!"
The "Germans", on the other hand, had very few replacements, apart from part of the "Koenigsberg" crew.
"Those are some interesting scars you have there, Trooper. Machine-gun?"
"No, Sir. Mauled by a Lion. The little ones on me ankle is from a Snake."
"Hmmm....'Normal Hazards of Service', I would call it. No Wound Stripe for YOUR sleeve!"
"But it were a GERMAN Lion, Sir. Come at us from Fritz's line, it did."
"Allright, you can keep the Wound Stripe. Did it roar in German?"
"No, Sir, it just tried to eat me. I think Fritz must be running short on supplies."
"Ah! Vital intelligence! Get you a Mention in Dispatches, that will, Trooper!"
Last edited:
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Where's that from, Smellie? Funny stuff. 
Here's a monstrosity I didn't know about:
The interwar French Char B tank. Note the scale of crew to tank. What an enormous deathtrap/target for the ELEVEN MAN CREW.
Very few built. In 1940, the French shipped them south by train to avoid having them captured. The way was blocked by a burning fuel train, and they were "scuttled".
One was relatively undamaged, and subsequently captured by the Boche:
Several pics exist of it under their care. It was in a museum in Germany until 1948, when it disappeared. Rumour has it it's in Russia.
Here's a monstrosity I didn't know about:
The interwar French Char B tank. Note the scale of crew to tank. What an enormous deathtrap/target for the ELEVEN MAN CREW.
Very few built. In 1940, the French shipped them south by train to avoid having them captured. The way was blocked by a burning fuel train, and they were "scuttled".
One was relatively undamaged, and subsequently captured by the Boche:
Several pics exist of it under their care. It was in a museum in Germany until 1948, when it disappeared. Rumour has it it's in Russia.
Last edited:
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
I think the worst thing about the French armour in 1940 was the tactical doctrine which dictated their employment. Generally they were employed in dribs and drabs to support the infantry, rather than being concentrated in mass to provide rapid maneuver, shock action and exploitation as did the opposition. Some of the tanks also suffered from poor division of crew labour with the commander being occupied as a gunner, rather than being free to maintain situational awareness required to command his own tank and others in an effective way. The lack of suitable radios for effective command and control was also a big shortcoming.
A passive/defensive mindset, poor leadership and inappropriate tactical doctrine were what made the French Army so ineffective in 1940. When properly equipped, trained and led the French have always been good soldiers. My contacts with the French Army were always positive and I found them to be highly motivated and professional.
A passive/defensive mindset, poor leadership and inappropriate tactical doctrine were what made the French Army so ineffective in 1940. When properly equipped, trained and led the French have always been good soldiers. My contacts with the French Army were always positive and I found them to be highly motivated and professional.
Last edited:
I'm still wondering why the Italian designers thought it was so important to be able to shoot downwards and backwards?
Great photos twincamharley; we were almost like a real country once; buildin' stuff 'n everything!
Great photos twincamharley; we were almost like a real country once; buildin' stuff 'n everything!
Santoneski
Regular
- Location
- Hamilton, On
Scans of some of my AF pics from the 50's and 60's
A great pic of the 3 ... a CF-100, T-33 and a V F-86 Sabre
I always loved the CF-100 just something about it.
Gun depression is a big deal because not all tank battles happen on the prairie. If you have the high ground, it's considered beneficial to be able to shoot at the enemy instead of over-top them. In battles of manoeuvre, it isn't always going to be the front of the tank facing the enemy - you're going to need to take the shot you can get, not the shot you wished you had.
Also, when popping over a berm with your poorly armoured lower glacis exposed, whether going forward or in reverse, nice to be able to pretend to get a shot off before you take one up the poop shoot through the tin they sarcastically referred to as armour in older tanks.
These were lessons learned at the cost of crews in the early tank battles.
Also, when popping over a berm with your poorly armoured lower glacis exposed, whether going forward or in reverse, nice to be able to pretend to get a shot off before you take one up the poop shoot through the tin they sarcastically referred to as armour in older tanks.
These were lessons learned at the cost of crews in the early tank battles.
I'm still wondering why the Italian designers thought it was so important to be able to shoot downwards and backwards?
Great photos twincamharley; we were almost like a real country once; buildin' stuff 'n everything!
I remember when the skies around RCAF Station Saskatoon were full of these aircraft. We even saw Mustangs and Mitchells which were flown by the reserves. I went to school with a kid whose father was The Red Knight, the solo T33 aerobatic act, and that kid sure had bragging rights. I remember fishing in northern Sask in the late 1950s when we used to see photo mapping Lancasters being flown out of Cold Lake.
Yes, I know what you mean, but some of the thinnest armour is on the rear of the tank so sticking your ass over the top of the hill to take a shot before running away? Instead of sticking your front armour, the thickest over? Doesn't make sense to me.
I grew up on a farm two miles SW from the Saskatoon airport ( born '46 ) and Mitchells were a common sight in those days along with Expeditors and Harvards.
A neighbor bought several Harvards and later sold them to a company that altered them to use in the movie Tora Tora made up to resemble Japanese aircraft...
