OT: WW2 Documentary

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

I wouldn't draw specific conclusions based on Macksey's orders as they were general instructions issued prior to the commencement of operations and therefore before any reactions from the Norwegians could be properly assessed. It just repeats much of the Chiefs of Staff Directive (31/3/40) for "CERTAIN OPERATIONS IN NORWEGIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS" which laid out the fact that any landing made would be as a counter action to German landing attempts in Norway.

In regard to political intentions for the landings, there were multiple War Cabinet statements regarding the conditional nature of the landings but the clearest was from Chamberlain on 7th April 1940 (the day before it was realized the Germans were moving). On the 7th when Scandinavian concerns had been raised over British activities, Chamberlain ordered that the British diplomats in Norway and Sweden were to inform the respective governments that "the Prime Minister could give an assurance that we have no intention of landing forces in Scandinavia unless the Germans force our hands by taking such action themselves.".

That's a very big pinky swear to make.

As for your suggestion that Churchill intended to order the landing regardless, it's not really relevant given only Chamberlain and the War Cabinet could make that final decision to go ahead. This was specifically set down in the Chiefs of Staff Directive (4th April) for MACHINERY FOR SETTING IN MOTION PLAN R.4..."before the expedition arrives off the Norwegian ports, the War Cabinet will decide whether the expedition is to proceed or be recalled". The expedition was estimated to take 20 hours after sailing before it would arrive off the coast.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Indeed, or total sloblocks, like the US handling of Pearl and The PI. Glad we are on the same wavelength. [:)]
Other than the fact that the British had already fallen over with their pants around their ankles before the fight had even begun while the US were sucker punched in the midst of their efforts to shield the now near helpless Brits who were refusing to get back up and properly defend themselves, well then yes we're probably on similar wavelengths in regard to the initial defense of the Far East/Pacific.[:'(]

This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

I wouldn't draw specific conclusions based on Macksey's orders as they were general instructions issued prior to the commencement of operations and therefore before any reactions from the Norwegians could be properly assessed. It just repeats much of the Chiefs of Staff Directive (31/3/40) for "CERTAIN OPERATIONS IN NORWEGIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS" which laid out the fact that any landing made would be as a counter action to German landing attempts in Norway.

In regard to political intentions for the landings, there were multiple War Cabinet statements regarding the conditional nature of the landings but the clearest was from Chamberlain on 7th April 1940 (the day before it was realized the Germans were moving). On the 7th when Scandinavian concerns had been raised over British activities, Chamberlain ordered that the British diplomats in Norway and Sweden were to inform the respective governments that "the Prime Minister could give an assurance that we have no intention of landing forces in Scandinavia unless the Germans force our hands by taking such action themselves.".

That's a very big pinky swear to make.

As for your suggestion that Churchill intended to order the landing regardless, it's not really relevant given only Chamberlain and the War Cabinet could make that final decision to go ahead. This was specifically set down in the Chiefs of Staff Directive (4th April) for MACHINERY FOR SETTING IN MOTION PLAN R.4..."before the expedition arrives off the Norwegian ports, the War Cabinet will decide whether the expedition is to proceed or be recalled". The expedition was estimated to take 20 hours after sailing before it would arrive off the coast.
warspite1

I'm not suggesting Churchill would give the order regardless of the PM and the war cabinet's wishes. I am suggesting that its possible that Chamberlain could find himself 'steam-rollered' by events - as he had been already. With Ships and troops vulnerable off Norway, caught in a dumb limbo of indecision and open to attack, with Norwegian actions unknown, German ships - and u-boats at sea.... Escalation beyond what Chamberlain may or may not have intended was quite foreseeable.

One could legitimately ask why were Norwegian concerns apparently so paramount to Chamberlain on the 7th (i.e. immovable), when the Allies knew of Norwegian and Swedish concerns on a number of occasions well before then? As said, Chamberlain had lost control a number of times during the tortuous back and forth. If he hadn't and Norwegian concerns were that paramount then what were the British doing even mining Norwegian territorial waters? Paramount? Er how does Wilfred figure in the 'dealing with neutrals' handbook?

We will never know because the whole thing was so mis-handled, and R4 was cancelled. But given the twists and turns of the war cabinet over the previous 6 months it is a bold man who would bet any serious money on how things would have turned out had the forces for R4 been at sea as they should.


Example. You only have to look at a slight change in timing and actions to bring that example to life.

The British ships are in position, when the Rio de Janeiro is sunk. German soldiers are picked up. The British realise the Germans are going to attack - BUT they haven't landed. The Norwegians choose to believe the German troops are headed elsewhere than Norway and refuse to let the British in. British troop laden ships are now spotted by German MG's... The whole sorry mess that is the British 'plan' is now not just in disarray, but is actually on the brink of disaster. So what does Chamberlain do now?

Just an example of what can happen once contact with the enemy is made and a plan - that was total sloblocks is exposed for what it is.


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Indeed, or total sloblocks, like the US handling of Pearl and The PI. Glad we are on the same wavelength. [:)]
Other than the fact that the British had already fallen over with their pants around their ankles before the fight had even begun while the US were sucker punched in the midst of their efforts to shield the now near helpless Brits who were refusing to get back up and properly defend themselves, well then yes we're probably on similar wavelengths in regard to the initial defense of the Far East/Pacific.[:'(]
warspite1

How tiresome.

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17896
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Indeed, or total sloblocks, like the US handling of Pearl and The PI. Glad we are on the same wavelength. [:)]
Other than the fact that the British had already fallen over with their pants around their ankles before the fight had even begun while the US were sucker punched in the midst of their efforts to shield the now near helpless Brits who were refusing to get back up and properly defend themselves, well then yes we're probably on similar wavelengths in regard to the initial defense of the Far East/Pacific.[:'(]
warspite1

How tiresome.

+1
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I'm not suggesting Churchill would give the order regardless of the PM and the war cabinet's wishes. I am suggesting that its possible that Chamberlain could find himself 'steam-rollered' by events - as he had been already. With Ships and troops vulnerable off Norway, caught in a dumb limbo of indecision and open to attack, with Norwegian actions unknown, German ships - and u-boats at sea.... Escalation beyond what Chamberlain may or may not have intended was quite foreseeable.

One could legitimately ask why were Norwegian concerns apparently so paramount to Chamberlain on the 7th (i.e. immovable), when the Allies knew of Norwegian and Swedish concerns on a number of occasions well before then? As said, Chamberlain had lost control a number of times during the tortuous back and forth. If he hadn't and they were that paramount then what were the British doing even mining Norwegian territorial waters? Paramount? Er how's that in the dealing with neutrals handbook?

We will never know because the whole thing was so mis-handled, and R4 was cancelled. But given the twists and turns of the war cabinet over the previous 6 months it is a bold man who would bet any serious money on how things would have turned out had the forces for R4 been at sea as they should.
You can suggest that opinion but it's not the same as the comment of yours that I'd originally queried regarding what you appeared to be saying about the British plan, which was "except if the Germans didn't react...the British would land anyway". If you're accepting now that actually wasn't part of the plan then we're in agreement.


This was the only sig line I could think of.
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Indeed, or total sloblocks, like the US handling of Pearl and The PI. Glad we are on the same wavelength. [:)]
Other than the fact that the British had already fallen over with their pants around their ankles before the fight had even begun while the US were sucker punched in the midst of their efforts to shield the now near helpless Brits who were refusing to get back up and properly defend themselves, well then yes we're probably on similar wavelengths in regard to the initial defense of the Far East/Pacific.[:'(]
warspite1

How tiresome.

Well excuse me for trying to add in some Pacific Theater relevance to this thread.[:)]
This was the only sig line I could think of.
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Example. You only have to look at a slight change in timing and actions to bring that example to life.

The British ships are in position, when the Rio de Janeiro is sunk. German soldiers are picked up. The British realise the Germans are going to attack - BUT they haven't landed. The Norwegians choose to believe the German troops are headed elsewhere than Norway and refuse to let the British in. British troop laden ships are now spotted by German MG's... The whole sorry mess that is the British 'plan' is now not just in disarray, but is actually on the brink of disaster. So what does Chamberlain do now?

Just an example of what can happen once contact with the enemy is made and a plan - that was total sloblocks is exposed for what it is.

You don't need an example to convince me. The plan was a stinker with too many unaddressed variables. But they meant well. Just probably not for Scandinavia.


This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I'm not suggesting Churchill would give the order regardless of the PM and the war cabinet's wishes. I am suggesting that its possible that Chamberlain could find himself 'steam-rollered' by events - as he had been already. With Ships and troops vulnerable off Norway, caught in a dumb limbo of indecision and open to attack, with Norwegian actions unknown, German ships - and u-boats at sea.... Escalation beyond what Chamberlain may or may not have intended was quite foreseeable.

One could legitimately ask why were Norwegian concerns apparently so paramount to Chamberlain on the 7th (i.e. immovable), when the Allies knew of Norwegian and Swedish concerns on a number of occasions well before then? As said, Chamberlain had lost control a number of times during the tortuous back and forth. If he hadn't and they were that paramount then what were the British doing even mining Norwegian territorial waters? Paramount? Er how's that in the dealing with neutrals handbook?

We will never know because the whole thing was so mis-handled, and R4 was cancelled. But given the twists and turns of the war cabinet over the previous 6 months it is a bold man who would bet any serious money on how things would have turned out had the forces for R4 been at sea as they should.
You can suggest that opinion but it's not the same as the comment of yours that I'd originally queried regarding what you appeared to be saying about the British plan, which was "except if the Germans didn't react...the British would land anyway". If you're accepting now that actually wasn't part of the plan then we're in agreement.
warspite1

I agree my statement appears too black and white and there was no plan to land regardless. However something is not clear here (well that's a surprise with this campaign isn't it?).

If Chamberlain ordered "the Prime Minister could give an assurance that we have no intention of landing forces in Scandinavia unless the Germans force our hands by taking such action themselves."

This is different to what was previously 'agreed' that R4 was to be executed "the moment the Germans landed in Norway or there was clear evidence they intended to do so". Although this line appears in quotes in a number of sources, I can't see where this was said and by whom. It's actually quite a big difference to the message of the 7th as the interpretation of what is clear evidence is for the British to be the arbiters of.

But bottom line is, the PM gives assurance the British won't land troops but Britain are going to violate Norwegian neutrality thus inviting the Germans to land in Norway (they didn't know this was going to happen) and bring Norway into the war.....

Cool.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I agree my statement appears too black and white and there was no plan to land regardless. However something is not clear here (well that's a surprise with this campaign isn't it?).
That's not a surprise. This is a surprise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOoiEbtf2w
If Chamberlain ordered "the Prime Minister could give an assurance that we have no intention of landing forces in Scandinavia unless the Germans force our hands by taking such action themselves."

This is different to what was previously 'agreed' that R4 was to be executed "the moment the Germans landed in Norway or there was clear evidence they intended to do so".
Yes it is different. Leader's prerogative. There was concern at this point that the Norwegians were getting distrustful of British motives and so might treat any preemptive landing as an invasion rather than their salvation. So it was agreed (at Cabinet level) that a landing should only be authorized once the Germans were in the process of coming ashore (preferably starting in the south) so that it would be obvious to the Norwegians that the Brits weren't fibbing. Or else if it became clear the Norwegians had already worked it out for themselves that the Germans were coming in, as happened in reality the next day.

In the case of the latter, the British had plenty of local contacts that would alert London.
Although this line appears in quotes in a number of sources, I can't see where this was said and by whom. It's actually quite a big difference to the message of the 7th as the interpretation of what is clear evidence is for the British to be the arbiters of.
The line was from the "CERTAIN OPERATIONS IN NORWEGIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS" Operational Directive produced by the CoS in March.
But bottom line is, the PM gives assurance the British won't land troops but Britain are going to violate Norwegian neutrality thus inviting the Germans to land in Norway (they didn't know this was going to happen) and bring Norway into the war.....

Cool.
Yes. Norway was told the laying of a British minefield in her territorial waters was her punishment for previously not being the right type of neutral for Britain (and France). Welcome to the war, have a nice day.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Zorch »

Churchill's other hare-brained scheme was Operation Catherine to cut off German iron ore supplies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Catherine

Churchill wanted to send 3 old BBs, a CV, five cruisers, two destroyer flotillas, submarines, and auxiliaries to blockade the German Baltic ports. The battleships would be modified to reduce draught and resist air and submarine attack. Royal Sovereign was to be fitted with bulges to make her 140 ft wide, increasing buoyancy and reducing her draught, even after the addition of more deck armor. 2 of her main turrets would be removed.

Winston proposed this in late '39 while First Lord of the Admiralty and pressed it forcefully until early 1940. Churchill anticipated that this 'show of force' would encourage the Scandinavian nations to join the war against Germany. Curiously, Jackie Fisher advocated a similar plan in 1914.

The blockade would have had to have lasted for several months to be effective, by which time the entire British force would have been sunk. Apparently this never got to Chamberlain because of Dudley Pound's opposition.

fcooke
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:37 pm
Location: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by fcooke »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

I completely agree that 'sparing on the flanks' was a sensible idea. But what form that sparing took was the problem.

To be fair there was only one thing wrong with the Allied (largely British) plans for Norway; they were complete, total and utter sloblocks.

One of life's great ironies, Chamberlain lost his job, and Churchill became PM, because of the total horlicks that Churchill (the driving force behind action in Scandinavia) made of Norway. Who ever said life was fair?
Hey! Churchill sent your namesake to Narvik and devastated the German Destroyer force for the rest of the war! The RN also damaged virtually every big ship the Germans had at the time, and persuaded the Germans to damage a couple of their own (Prinz Eugen vs Leipzig). The FAA sank Königsberg and the Norwegians sank Blucher. It was no picnic for the Germans either.
warspite1

Yes but a few operational successes don't mask the fact that the whole affair was one of muddle, confusion and indecisiveness. Yes the Germans lost a lot of their navy in undertaking an operation to obtain bases for their navy [:)] (as Buckrock says it was a stinker of a plan).....but it could - and should - have been so much worse for the Germans.

But let's stick with the British stinker for the moment.

I won't bother to go into the tortuous diplomatic process from start to finish - it's too long and frankly at times absurd, genuinely absurd (coalition warfare at its finest). But by the time action was decided upon, the winter was over (so iron ore would be travelling through the Baltic) and Finland had surrendered anyway (Daladier wanted to help the Finns purely to aid his chances of staying in power and Churchill wanted to pretend to help the Finns so he could occupy the Swedish ore fields - the Swedes apparently had no say in this)....

As said the French wanted the operation to happen and so the British (who would take on the bulk of the operation) asked the French to mine the Rhine. The French said no to the latter because... the Germans might retaliate (fair enough as obviously France and Germany weren't at war at that time - no wait [8|].... and Churchill didn't push it because he wanted the landings in Norway - so Norway went ahead but not the mining of the Rhine....

So what happened? Well the allies were told to **** off by the Norwegians and the Swedes (strange that) but thought lets do it anyway. And here is the really ahem... 'clever' bit. The British would mine Norwegian waters so that the Germans would react. Then, when the Germans had reacted - and so were the aggressors - the British would land in Norway....

Except.... If the Germans didn't react (and no one actually laid out what a 'reaction' was) then the British would land anyway. The orders given to the commanders as to how to deal with any Norwegian reaction was - like the operation itself - confused, muddled and a receipe for disaster. If anyone is still following this cobblers, then its pretty clear by now that the allies would have invaded a neutral country....

The troops chosen for the operation were largely territorial troops, insufficient in numbers, ill-equipped and without air cover or AA weaponry... or skis.... or maps.... good job there is an all-weather highway into Sweden..... no wait (part II [8|]). The lack of aircraft and AA weapons would really come home later.

When the allied troops were eventually landed they had been beaten to it by the Germans who had time at least some to deal with the Norwegians and prepare. Allied landing orders were changed at the last minute for some troops which were diverted to different destinations... but some of those ships still had the equipment and supplies for the original destination, leaving the troops landed at that original destination somewhat in the lurch.

But there's more....

The British mining operation was all about getting a German reaction. But as soon as the Admiralty knew the Germans were actually at sea, they assumed a breakout into the Atlantic and seemed to forget that the Germans might be heading for Norway themselves.... so what did they do? Well they CANCELLED the landing operation and positioned for a breakout..... numerous chances to smash at least three of the troop packed Marinegruppen, BEFORE they had landed, came and went. So the British got the reaction they wanted from the Germans, but they were in no position to take advantage because their troops were still in the UK when, with the Germans having just landed, the Germans could otherwise have faced a pretty nasty reception.

A total balls up literally from start to finish.... and we haven't even got to the land and air operations and the poor RN having to put itself in harms way (it would not be the last time) to help the army. The land operations went as well as could be expected with ill-equipped, ill-trained and understrength troops. Then there was the spiffing wheeze, belatedly and hurriedly put in place, to provide air cover. What did the top brass think would be a sensible force to hold back the Luftwaffe? Well how about a squadron of Gloster Gladiator biplanes? Er...right... And where shall we base them? Well how about a frozen lake with no cover or facilities?.... Mmmm I wonder how long they lasted?..... That was a rhetorical question - it was two days.






It's been a while since I have been to Hendon, but IIRC they had one of the Gladiators from this ill fated mission on display that had been raised from the lake bed.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17896
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: fcooke
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


Hey! Churchill sent your namesake to Narvik and devastated the German Destroyer force for the rest of the war! The RN also damaged virtually every big ship the Germans had at the time, and persuaded the Germans to damage a couple of their own (Prinz Eugen vs Leipzig). The FAA sank Königsberg and the Norwegians sank Blucher. It was no picnic for the Germans either.
warspite1

Yes but a few operational successes don't mask the fact that the whole affair was one of muddle, confusion and indecisiveness. Yes the Germans lost a lot of their navy in undertaking an operation to obtain bases for their navy [:)] (as Buckrock says it was a stinker of a plan).....but it could - and should - have been so much worse for the Germans.

But let's stick with the British stinker for the moment.

I won't bother to go into the tortuous diplomatic process from start to finish - it's too long and frankly at times absurd, genuinely absurd (coalition warfare at its finest). But by the time action was decided upon, the winter was over (so iron ore would be travelling through the Baltic) and Finland had surrendered anyway (Daladier wanted to help the Finns purely to aid his chances of staying in power and Churchill wanted to pretend to help the Finns so he could occupy the Swedish ore fields - the Swedes apparently had no say in this)....

As said the French wanted the operation to happen and so the British (who would take on the bulk of the operation) asked the French to mine the Rhine. The French said no to the latter because... the Germans might retaliate (fair enough as obviously France and Germany weren't at war at that time - no wait [8|].... and Churchill didn't push it because he wanted the landings in Norway - so Norway went ahead but not the mining of the Rhine....

So what happened? Well the allies were told to **** off by the Norwegians and the Swedes (strange that) but thought lets do it anyway. And here is the really ahem... 'clever' bit. The British would mine Norwegian waters so that the Germans would react. Then, when the Germans had reacted - and so were the aggressors - the British would land in Norway....

Except.... If the Germans didn't react (and no one actually laid out what a 'reaction' was) then the British would land anyway. The orders given to the commanders as to how to deal with any Norwegian reaction was - like the operation itself - confused, muddled and a receipe for disaster. If anyone is still following this cobblers, then its pretty clear by now that the allies would have invaded a neutral country....

The troops chosen for the operation were largely territorial troops, insufficient in numbers, ill-equipped and without air cover or AA weaponry... or skis.... or maps.... good job there is an all-weather highway into Sweden..... no wait (part II [8|]). The lack of aircraft and AA weapons would really come home later.

When the allied troops were eventually landed they had been beaten to it by the Germans who had time at least some to deal with the Norwegians and prepare. Allied landing orders were changed at the last minute for some troops which were diverted to different destinations... but some of those ships still had the equipment and supplies for the original destination, leaving the troops landed at that original destination somewhat in the lurch.

But there's more....

The British mining operation was all about getting a German reaction. But as soon as the Admiralty knew the Germans were actually at sea, they assumed a breakout into the Atlantic and seemed to forget that the Germans might be heading for Norway themselves.... so what did they do? Well they CANCELLED the landing operation and positioned for a breakout..... numerous chances to smash at least three of the troop packed Marinegruppen, BEFORE they had landed, came and went. So the British got the reaction they wanted from the Germans, but they were in no position to take advantage because their troops were still in the UK when, with the Germans having just landed, the Germans could otherwise have faced a pretty nasty reception.

A total balls up literally from start to finish.... and we haven't even got to the land and air operations and the poor RN having to put itself in harms way (it would not be the last time) to help the army. The land operations went as well as could be expected with ill-equipped, ill-trained and understrength troops. Then there was the spiffing wheeze, belatedly and hurriedly put in place, to provide air cover. What did the top brass think would be a sensible force to hold back the Luftwaffe? Well how about a squadron of Gloster Gladiator biplanes? Er...right... And where shall we base them? Well how about a frozen lake with no cover or facilities?.... Mmmm I wonder how long they lasted?..... That was a rhetorical question - it was two days.
It's been a while since I have been to Hendon, but IIRC they had one of the Gladiators from this ill fated mission on display that had been raised from the lake bed.

A zombie Gladiator!
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: fcooke

It's been a while since I have been to Hendon, but IIRC they had one of the Gladiators from this ill fated mission on display that had been raised from the lake bed.
warspite1

I bought 263 Squadron Gladiators over the fjords (Crawford) some years ago. This states that the forward fuselage of aircraft N5628 is on display there.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”