Dave HomewoodMalcolm – I never said I don’t accept archeaology. I even mentioned I enjoy watching TV programmes, hearing radio programmes an even looking at books on the subject of the things you do. My only point was I could not see what the difference was between what you do and what Andy, Dilip, Cees and others do. To me, an untrained non-archeologist, I was obviously not fully aware of the reasons why the ‘academic professionals’ decided post on the thread only to make condescending remarks about others, calling them treasure hunters and implying they were in it only for the money and glory.
That, Malcolm, was why I made my post. To challenge the arrogance of the remarks being made. I deliberately made some of my statements a little obtuse and seemingly naiive because I was making a blunt comparison between the two occupations as I saw it.
Some very valid questions have een asked on this thread by several people which could no doubt be answered by you trained pros but instead you just want to argue and not let anyone else know what you’re actually arguing about.
At least Web Pilot had the common courtesy to explain the differences in thinking that I was not aware of between the two sides, and I thank him for that. I’m still not convinced that here’s that much difference apart from the aim of what you’re hoping to study (people versus mechaincics). But you’d argue that of course and are enttled to because you have the expeience that i don’t. Don’t bother arguing it with me though, I can’t be bothered reading any more on this subject,
Please allow the thread to get back to the topic now.
Dave HomewoodThanks Web Pilot – I see what youre saying now. Cheers.
Dave HomewoodMay I respectfully ask again please about the Bf109 wreck – has that been investigated for signs of collision? Just wondering, my question may have got missed in the mad rush of posts earlier.
Dave HomewoodThe problem in differentiating between “proper” archaeology and aviation archaeology is really that the term “aviation archaeology” is something of a misnomer. Crash recovery, for that it is what it is, tells us about the circumstances of an individual crash whether that crash happened yesterday or 60 years ago. For that reason crash recovery is a valuable adjunct to aviation history, but it is not archaeology, as that science is to reconstruct patterns of the past from the structured recovery of remains – the digging and analysis of one Roman villa is related to that of other remains to reconstruct patterns of past settlement, life and so on.
Some archaeological techniques can be brought to bear on this area of study but crashes are generally isolated events that have little or no bearing on others or of the wider events going on around them – although the density of crashes in Northern France tells us a little about the ferocity of the war over head they tell us little else, other than the circumstances of that individual event. Digging 100 Spitfire wrecks simply won’t reconstruct the fighting or social history of the RAF in 1940 in the way that digging 100 Roman forts would inform about the Roman army. This is not to say that those wrecks should not be dug, but the reasons for doing so should be examined.
I’ve long thought that the term “aviation archaeology” has held back this field of research and this debate has reinforced that view.
Thank you Web Pilot, that has widened my thinking on the matter at least a little. If archeaology is a science that comes up with theories based on wider patterns and trends and their connections betwen these then it is not unlike mechanical diagnosis or medicine – but again I see correlation with digging an aircraft up to examine what happened. If you examine the Spitfire wreck that’s been dug up to see why it crashed, making a diagnosis which will be based on engineering or mechanical factors, etc, is that not making comparisons to documented trends and patterns of how other Spitfires crashed after combat? ie if a bullet has severed a vital mechanical part and a fire has started – you can work this out by looking at these areas and checking records for similar damage and effects on previous Spitfires from 1940’s records I’d think, etc. Is this not a similar action to comparing the trends found between the 100 Roman forts?
maybe I’m making little sense, it’s very late, sorry.
This is a fascinating thread with so many deep areas of thought. I’m pleased to see that it may be helping to mend an old friendship too. Good luck guys.
Dave Homewoodfor example someone suggested that wreckage should be left for future generations.
I’d like to add to your good comments on this that in terms of Bader and co, most of us here are the future generations. We are already a new generation learning about our predecessors’ pasts from these wrecks.
Dave HomewoodWow 😮 There were so many prejudices, misconceptions and examples of just plain uninformed nonsense in there about modern archaeology that it was truly scary to read. If the general public really think like that there really is no hope for the species.
Hey, I said I am not an archeaologist – go figure. I am however an intellingent and informed, educated person. My impression of what you do I admit is based largely on watching television and hearing radio programmes about the things your lot do, and I don’t refer to just Time Team (despite the fact those arceaologists are academics from universities and do dig up aircraft). Also a little of reading books too. But I’ve never had the opportunity to see archraologists at work – there’s not a lot of call for it in NZ.
You obviously feel I have everything wrong and yet you make no attempt to correct me by telling me what the ‘true’ situation is. Are you lot like the Magic Circle? Don’t give away the secrets and let anyone else in? 🙂
I genuinely would like the difference explained please, rather than just cheap shots. Maybe you can educate a few others as well as me. Thank you.
Dave HomewoodI find it odd how an archeaologist is telling these aircraft historians who’ve excavated wrecks in order to further their knowledge of their particular interest in history that they are nothing more than treasure hunters. I don’t mean offence to your profession Malcolm but that attitude seems like pure snobbish piffle to me.
Unless I am missing something vital in this and need it explained in small syllables to put me right, because I’m no archeaologist, but I cannot fathom what the difference between an academic archeologist who digs up mummies (grave robbing!) or dinosaurs or old building foundations etc, and an aviation archeaologist who digs up a wreck from 60 years ago is.
How is it different? You both dig a hole, pull something out, investigate and analyse it to hopefully further your research, and by and large sell it to a museum or collector when finished for preservation – and to pay your expenses.
The only things different I see apart from one group being able to wave their doctorate and the other (in some cases) not, is that the archeaological study of ancient artifacts is much less scientific in a tangible sense and much more based on theory. Some old pot found in the ground can be theorised as to its age, usage, religious meaning etc – but no-one who used or made the pot is here to tell us and it was never photographed or written about at the time. So, it is either a useless piece of pottery, or a theory has to be developed around it to give it meaning and make it important.
Whereas we do know all about Spitfires, who designed them, who built them, who flew them, how and why they were used in WWII combat, and all about their engineering, etc as it’s all documented and eyewitnesses, users, even in some cases the manufacturers of an aircraft still exist – so there’s no need to theorise, it can be factualised. And in an individual case like this dig, you can then use all that fact to build up a picture of circumstance – the missing piece of the jigsaw.
With the pot, we don’t even have a clue about the pot near alone the circumstance in which it came to be buried. You can theorise who may have made it, who may have used it, how they engineered the clay,etc. But it ain’t fact, it’s theory, usually based on comparisions with previous theory. Sometimes no matter how wide of the mark it may be the archeaologist then presents it to the world as ‘fact’ – just like other sciences that cannot prove the theory but present it as the truth – like Geology – has anyone ever seen the earth’s core? No. So who’s to say my theory it’s white chocolate is any less valid?
Anyway, my point is, is it not a good thing to have people researching these wrecks now and getting the facts down for future generations while we know all that surrounding evidence that is fact. Or would you rather wait 500 or 1000 years till everyone connected to a Spitfire is long gone, no more actually exist for whatever reason and many records have disappeared in whatever wars or natural disaters that are to come, and then have some academic archeaologist dig the remains up only to theorise a little about it using their own completely different and removed discourse and assume he knows all about it, despite the fact he may connect the dots quite wrongly? He may assume that this beautifully crafted metal obkject is some ceremonial burial casket blah blah blah like most things archeaologists dig up these days.
Dave HomewoodI’m pleased to see this thread has now settled down into interesting and useful debate (mostly)
. i.e. the tail having been chopped off at a fair altitude, I believe that the Spitfire would have made quite an impact; it could not possibly have fluttered down to land relatively intact. So where is it?
A completely daft thought, but earlier this evening I viewed a clip of footage posted to the Hyperscale forum of a Beaufort having it’s tail cut off and crashing. Granted they are low, but you can see how the tailess plane acts. Watch the clip – but be warned it’s not pretty
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/ww2_plane_crash_Aug_27_2006.html
As you see, the tailess plane comes down in the exact spot as the other Beaufort. Could it be possible that by some strange twist of fate Bader’s tailess Spitfire crashed in the same spot as the Bf109F or some other area that no-one’s checked because they assume it’s only one plane in the hole?
I told you it was daft. Sorry, I’m not taking the mickey, it’s a genuine thought that has popped into my head after seeing this clip. I’ve not seen the documentary nor read the books so not aware of all the known variables, this is purely a suggetion for consideration (if you warrant it as such). It’s not a leg pull.
More to the point regardless of where Bader’s plane came down, I see that Andy says the spot where the Messerschmitt came down is known. Has that been excavated? Has it been checked for obvious wing damage or RAF paint chips embedded in it’s own surface, etc that might suggest the theory of the 109 cutting the tail off is right/wrong? I mean you don’t have Bader’s plane, but you have another vital other piece of evidence that can prove or disprove the theory – the Messerschmitt. I assume you’ve dug it up and analised it scientifically? or at least considered this option?
Dave HomewoodA great mini-series. Annoyingly I seem to have lost or accidentally wiped episode one and only retain the second half in my collection sadly. So I too wish it’d come out on DVD. Clunes is such a great actor.
Dave HomewoodThere’s a very good article here in English, I assume it’s the same crew.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17630542&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=the-last-flight-of-stirling-w7624-name_page.html
Dave HomewoodWill the bombers take evasive action or just keep on a steady course?
Will this co-incide with Collings bombers taking passengers aloft? Or is that a risk too far?
Does the punter sit in the front or the back? I assume the back.
If this proves really popular can we expect more Me262 replica’s to be produced and maybe franchises with air combat facilities at airports across America? Hmm, a production run of bombers would be needed too of course… Maybe the two-seat Buchon can come out of retirement too. Now I’m getting into the realms of fantasy.
Dave Homewood.The Commonwealth Air Force’s played a major part in the air war over Europe. Of the thousands of Bomber Crews that died in World War Two, they included:
1,697 members of the Royal New Zealand Air Force. .
Of the more then 11,000 airmen who went from New Zealand to the European and Middle East and Far East campaigns to fly with the RAF, over 4000 never returned. It’s interesting to see such a low figure for Bomber Command as I had thought the majority would have died in bombers.
To add to and correct some other points made:
Royal New Zealand Air Force Bomber Command
was 487 sqn who’s motto was `Ki Te Mutunga` I Believe the Maori translation to be ‘to the end’ but I cannot guarantee it!
Yes, close, Ki Te Mutunga maeans Through To The End
In the Battle of Britain, 401 Squadron, Fighter Command, was a New Zealand squadron.
Really? I have never heard of that. Please tell more. It was certainly not an official RNZAF squadron. There was an unofficial New Zealand Fighter Squadron, No. 258 Sqn, flying Hurricanes in late 1940-1941, which was made up mostly of RNZAF pilots, and their aircraft all wore silver ferns (one of our national symbols). But most of these pilots were transferred in March 41 to the newly formed No. 485 Squadron, our first official fighter squadron.
Also No. 830 Squadron Fleet Air Arm, when it reformed in 1943, was made up mostly of Kiwis but never given official recognition as an official NZ squadron. They flew Barracudas II’s from May 1943-Oct 1944, including bombing the Tirpitz.
As well No. 243 Squadron was mostly New Zealand pilots from formation in March 1941 to the fall of Singapore. No. 67 Squadron was also mostly New Zealand pilots from formation in March 1941 but were down to about 2/3rd New Zealanders during the spring of 1942. Plus No. 605 Squadron had a New Zealand Flight during the last days of the defence of Java.
But I’ve never heard of No. 401 Squadron being connected to NZ or the RNZAF. If any Battle of Britain Squadrons I’d have picked No. 41 (or was it 54?) Squadron which had Al Deere, Colin Gray nd Bob Spurdle among its pilots.
Officially the RNZAf had seven squadrons in the RAF:
They were
No. 485 Fighter Command (Spitfires and in 1945, Tempests)
No. 486 Fighter Command (Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempests)
No. 487 Bomber Command (Venturas, Mosquitos)
No. 488 Fighter Command Night Fighter (Blenheims, Beaufighters, Mosquitoes)
No. 489 Coastal Command (Blenheims, Beauforts, Beaufighters, Mosquitoes)
No. 490 Coastal Command (Catalinas, Sunderlands)
And thed one important Bomber Command squadron that your piece missed out, No. 75 (NZ) Squadron. This was the first ever official foreign Squadron in the RAF in WWII. It was initially made up of RNZAF owned aircraft (Wellingtons) and crews from 1939 as they’d gone to the UK to pick up our bombers which were planned to come home. When the war looked like it was to kick off in the August our Govt. offered the bombers to britain and the crews. They first formed The New Zealand Flight of No. 75 Squadron RAF, but as more Kiwis arrived it became No. 75 (NZ) Squadron. They flew Wimpys, Stirlings and Lancasters, and just afetr the wars end, Lincolns.
They were involved in virtually every important raid there was, had some of the best bombing figures and also had some of the worst figures for casualties. By 1946 the RAF was so pleased with the RNZAF’s efforts in the war they allowed the RNZAF to transfer the 75 Sqn No. to our Air Force and it continued till 2001 when it was finally disbanded.
Dave HomewoodWasn,t Galland also a bit temperamental and considered arrogant??
That’s certainly the impression you get from reading Battle of Britain by Leonard Mosely – it seems he firmly believed the Germans had won the Battle of Britain too!
As was Hans Rudel…Hartman if you have seen him in a doco you could see that cold hunting streak still in him after all the years.I have heard the term B@stard Bader many times.
All this is probably true, and there has been more than a little written about a few successful US pilots such as Chuck Yeagar possessing similar characteristics. But then these tough, hot-headed people who want to get the job done and have no-one in their way are the ones who succeed – whether as fighter pilots, businessmen, F1 drivers, etc. I’ve met modern day fighter pilots myself who were obnoxious, arrogant and rude too.
Dave HomewoodDave,
Firstly it just isn’t practical to keep sending chips to China…whatever next, coals to Newcastle? :rolleyes:
I don’t see how it isn’t practical – you’re already sending other data, just slip them into the envelope… Colour chips are not that hard to come by either.
Secondly the NZ Kittyhawk was nothing to do with me
I never meant to imply that at all, I was just pointng out the Hurricane is not the only balls-up they’ve made. I never even knew you work for Corgi till this thread.
, although if I hadn’t intervened it would have been painted in RAF desert camo! 😮
Instead it’s in Luftwaffe desrt camo. It certainly isn’t in the right scheme.
You give them the correct British Standard or Federal Standard reference numbers, you check the artwork and check the prototype model…..all correct, then the Chinese ****-up the production run! I can only lead them to water….!!!
If they are that unreliable, Corgi shouldn’t use them. They are ruining the name of a once great British company which will soon go the way of Dinky and Matchbox and Lledo.
As many of you know, I am particular about accuracy (pedantic maybe :rolleyes: ) but I do try to ensure accuracy is maintained in the model and real worlds.
That’s fine by me Albert. I have always enjoyed and respected your posts here, you have a huge depth of knowledge and photos, and are usually very accurate in your posting. I’ve learned a great deal from your posts too. That’s great. My beef was with that Corgi model, which wasn’t your doing as you say. Sorry if it seemed like an attack on you, I’ve wanted to vent over that model ever since I first saw it as it’s an insult tothe RNZAF as far a I’m concerned, and here was my first opportunity.
Dave HomewoodJust a slight difference there!! Corgi had all the correct BS colour references + all-over colour photos from me. These went to the artwork agency, who forwarded them to the factory in China where hundreds of Chinese workers interpret these references. As with so many of these models, everything is perfect whilst in UK but once they leave our shores, you just have to hope it stays that way! Can’t compare this with painting one single aircraft in UK, sorry 😮
Why doesn’t Corgi send colour chips to China instead of references, so their painters can colour match rather than misinterpret written references?
And, why don’t they ask for test shots to check for accuracy before releasing their toys en masse onto the market? Other modelmakers do.
Whoever was responsible for the awful Corgi attempt at a No. 15 Squadron RNZAF Kittyhawk should have been fired – just look at it, it’s a disgrace!
http://www.wingsandwheel.com/images/corgi/new%20corgi/AA35202.jpg
It should look like these colours on Ray Hannas’ old P-40
http://www.airventure.de/hahn2000pics/hahn2000_8.JPG
It’s an easily researchable scheme and anyone knows what RAF Dark Green and Dark Earth look like. But Corgi painted it an awful calf-sh*t sand colour! Is that the colour of earth in China?
Plus white spinner and codes, where they should be RAF Sky like the undersides (or have they painted the underneath white too?).
It’s bad enough that almost EVERY model manufacturer and decal maker get RNZAF Pacific roundels the wrong colour blue, but this P-40 is an easily researched scheme and all it says to me is no-one could be bothered looking it up or asking an RNZAF historian.
It is this sort of thing that will make kids – the people of our future – when they play with these overpriced Corgi toys think that RNZAF aircraft flew in sand coloured P-40’s and prepetuate a false myth for the future. Not that the masking tape was a couple of inches too low on the Tiger Moth’s otherwise lovely scheme.
I do see your point on accuracy and preventing history being twisted in the future Albert, but in the Tiger Moth’s case it may be just a little pedantic. Just be thankful it’s flying and well looked after and much loved.
Out of interest does anyone know how much it’d cost for a repaint on an aircraft the size of a Glaidator?
Sign In
