Burmese Spitfires, they've found a crate.
Back in 1973 the RAF recovered a Halifax bomber from the bottom of a ffiord in Norway. I think it is now on display in the RAF museum.
The condition of the aircraft after 30 years submerged in fresh water was quite good apart from the damage sustained during the war. On recovery it was subjected to some preservation/restoration procedures.
I am not saying that the Spitfires - if found - are in the same state but perhaps they will not be as bad as some are thinking.
Just thinking out load.
Aaron.
The condition of the aircraft after 30 years submerged in fresh water was quite good apart from the damage sustained during the war. On recovery it was subjected to some preservation/restoration procedures.
I am not saying that the Spitfires - if found - are in the same state but perhaps they will not be as bad as some are thinking.
Just thinking out load.
Aaron.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Depends if the water/mud is anaerobic, which bogs generally are and hence why bodies and other items don't corrode. Hopefully they'll be wet, but intact.
Having viewed the Halifax at Hendon on several occasions, I feel that it could be restored to a good static condition and retain a majority of its originality. Its present condition has a patina of a long submerged relic but, it really deserves the museum standard rebuild that the RAF museum has not faced up to (yet)!
OAP
OAP
Apologies for drifting the thread off track, but..
Ref the Halifax in the lake post. The Canadians also raised a Halifax VII a few years ago. This now sits in the museum at CFB Trenton and has been restored to 'as new'. She looks magnificent.
Can any poster from CAF / RCAF advise on how much is new, and how much has been replaced on this grand old lady?
Sorry, just curious!
Can any poster from CAF / RCAF advise on how much is new, and how much has been replaced on this grand old lady?
Sorry, just curious!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
The reason the Halifax is as it is was they could not afford to restore it, they did the turret and that was it. I actually think the way it is displayed is excellent and puts across the losses far more than an immaculate static rebuild, though the turret looks out of place beside it.
I was suprised to learn recently on a TV documentary having been taught of the horrors of war in the WW1 trench's that the losses incurred by Bomber Command meant you had a greater chance of survival during WW1 than crewing a bomber.
.
I was suprised to learn recently on a TV documentary having been taught of the horrors of war in the WW1 trench's that the losses incurred by Bomber Command meant you had a greater chance of survival during WW1 than crewing a bomber.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 12th Jan 2013 at 12:15.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philippines
Age: 81
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was suprised to learn recently on a TV documentary having been taught of the horrors of war in WW1 trench's that the losses incurred by Bomber Command meant you had a greater chance of survival during WW1 than crewing a bomber.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Oh, what fun!
I doubt he would have been aware of that statistic though.
Perhaps not that particular Statistic.....but I am sure he could count the empty chairs in the Mess after each Raid and knew the "odds".
Hand Salute to yer Dad!
I wish they would hurry up because at this rate if they manage to find the crates and construct 70 Spitfires they will be required by the RAF.
Mr Camerloon will be stating that he has been so good to the RAF that he gave them 70 (nearly) new Airplanes.
Never underestimate a politician.
Mr Camerloon will be stating that he has been so good to the RAF that he gave them 70 (nearly) new Airplanes.
Never underestimate a politician.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
It was on the Fifties British War Films : Days of Glory shown on BBC4
It's noted as he goes to the Bomber Command Memorial whilst discussing the success and how people could relate to the Dambuster film he states and i quote..
Stunned me when he said that, but when you look at the losses it makes sense sadly.
From Wikipedia
Frightning.
RAF Bomber Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's noted as he goes to the Bomber Command Memorial whilst discussing the success and how people could relate to the Dambuster film he states and i quote..
"Bomber Command had a death rate of 44.4%, you had more chance of returning from the trenches in the Great War than you did of surviving as Bomber Crew"
Stunned me when he said that, but when you look at the losses it makes sense sadly.
From Wikipedia
Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. This covered all Bomber Command operations including tactical support for ground operations and mining of sea lanes.[clarification needed][24] A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I.[24] By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force, which flew daylight raids over Europe had 350,000 aircrew during the war and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs.[24] Of the RAF Bomber Command personnel killed during the war, 72% were British, 18% were Canadian, 7% were Australian and 3% were New Zealanders. [25]
Taking an example of 100 airmen:[26]
55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
two shot down and evaded capture
27 survived a tour of operations
Taking an example of 100 airmen:[26]
55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
two shot down and evaded capture
27 survived a tour of operations
RAF Bomber Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by NutLoose; 12th Jan 2013 at 13:25.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the Bay, Vic, Oz
Age: 80
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the rate that aircrew were being pushed through can well believe that a significant number were lost in training flights. Interested in hearing whether ground crew were considered non-combatants. There would have been quite a few lost due to enemy bombing, and maintenance accidents given the need to get aircraft airworthy ASAP.
John Terraine's history of the RAF in WW2 "The Right of the Line" gives a total of 70,253 RAF aircrew killed or missing on operations.
Of that figure Bomber Command made up 47,268. In addition there were a further 8,305 Bomber Command aircrew lost in non-operational flying. - ie 15% of the total Bomber Command losses.
Of that figure Bomber Command made up 47,268. In addition there were a further 8,305 Bomber Command aircrew lost in non-operational flying. - ie 15% of the total Bomber Command losses.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
If you have a row of crates and are pumping one out, one would imagine you are doing them all plus the surrounding ground, top that off with pumping it up some 30ft and it may take a while.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If water got in the crate that would suggest the water table is above the crate. As you pump it out it will surely fill up again. They really need to put in a coffer dam.
Anyway, where are the photos?
Anyway, where are the photos?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's true that the bomber offensive was thought to be a good idea at the time, in part in hope of avoiding the horrendous losses suffered in the trench warfare twenty years earlier.
In the 'unforeseen circumstances' stakes, this failed in two different ways:
(1) the losses we equally, if not more, horrendous than those of the WW1 trenches, and
(2) probably more important in the long run, and more tragic for the UK and Commonwealth countries involved, it wiped out, not just such large numbers of one generation, but the very best of that generation - the potential future leaders of those countries.
You only have to look at the political and business leadership in those countries after the war and to this day to see the stark truth in point (2).
In the 'unforeseen circumstances' stakes, this failed in two different ways:
(1) the losses we equally, if not more, horrendous than those of the WW1 trenches, and
(2) probably more important in the long run, and more tragic for the UK and Commonwealth countries involved, it wiped out, not just such large numbers of one generation, but the very best of that generation - the potential future leaders of those countries.
You only have to look at the political and business leadership in those countries after the war and to this day to see the stark truth in point (2).