Landships II

Breaking:


Announcement: Please read the following announcement!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Chatbox
Please log in to join the chat!
Post Info TOPIC: Seizure of "Mephisto."


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3347
Date:
Seizure of "Mephisto."
Permalink   


Just thinking. The story usually goes that M was seized, captured, recovered, salvaged by Queensland troops. But according to the v professional graffiti on the side, it was "salved" by 1st Gun Carrier Company, 5th Tank Brigade. We don't know what vehicles were used (GC or Mk IV),  but something had to tow a 30 ton tank. Unless the recovery vehicle(s)  was/were in Aussie hands, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Mephisto was taken by Australian and British troops?

P.S. This post is in no way connected with The Ashes.



-- Edited by James H on Sunday 12th of July 2015 08:14:56 PM

__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1729
Date:
Permalink   

Mark Whitmore, late of the Queensland Museum, in his book on Mephisto says that the 1st GC Co. worked with Australian troops

for some days before the recovery to prepare a towing track so Mephisto could be dragged behind the Allied lines. It isn't known

whether Gun Carriers or Mark IV Supply tanks were used for the recovery according to Whitmore.

I agree that, being generous, the recovery should be considered a joint operation.

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3347
Date:
Permalink   

Thank you, Charlie. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

I shall put it to a number of people - by no means necessarily Australian - and see how annoyed they get.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1729
Date:
Permalink   

If we accept the Whitmore account as credible and close to authoritative then you could characterise

the recovery of Mephisto as instigated by Australian local command, executed by the British (1st GC Co.)

with help from Australian infantry.

I can think of a couple of people in the Australian Army History Unit who would become quite apoplectic 

with this characterisation. See if you can get images if your victims really do foam at the mouth.

Regards,

Charlie

 



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1729
Date:
Permalink   

Didn't take the AWM long.... on display from 27th July.

Regards,

Charlie



-- Edited by CharlieC on Sunday 19th of July 2015 05:08:32 AM

Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3347
Date:
Permalink   

From what I've been told, QM might have to mount a similar sortie to get Meph back from AWM.

Btw, after all this time I've just learnt that Elfriede was also recovered with the assistance of British tanks.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 380
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour James,

"I've just learnt that Elfriede was also recovered with the assistance of British tanks" 

Yes, it was the British tank from 2nd Lt Alfred Edward Ashworth, and probably with two tanks.

If a Saint Chamond caisson was sent no far away from Elfriede, French military documents dont' said if :

                 - The French recovery tank was used with one British tank,

                 - The British tank (or two british tanks) have done the job alone .

That is sure, one tank was probably not enough for a so heavy tank like the A7V.

About Elfriede :

                 http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/elfriede-recupere-bretonneux-sujet_463_1.htm

                 http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/bretonneux-carriere-elfriede-sujet_1068_1.htm

                 http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/artillerie-elfriede-concorde-sujet_2041_1.htm

 

Bonne après-midi - Michel



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1328
Date:
Permalink   

I wasn't going to post, because I wasn't entirely sure, but the reference to Ashworth and the chalked 1st Tanks slogan on the tank have changed things.

It was recovered by a Mark IV Female, 6039, which was 2/Lt Ashworth's tank and from A Company, 1st Battalion, Tank Corps. This is the tank that was later presented to Windsor.

Gwyn

__________________

Britain to Stay in EU. We are the 48%.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3347
Date:
Permalink   

Merci, Michel, and ta, Gwyn. Excellent stuff.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Date:
Permalink   

Gwyn

As an occasional visitor here I was delighted - and intrigued - to read here that you've been able to identify the individual tank (and tank commander) responsible for Mephisto's salvage.

I am excited by this news as it significantly extends our understanding of the this trophy's acquisition. Are you also able to share with us the document references and page scans, that underpin this claim?

 

Thanks

 

Mark



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3347
Date:
Permalink   

Just revisited this thread and have noticed what I think is a misunderstanding on bauple58's part. Gwyn and Michel are referring to the recovery of Elfriede, not Mephisto, when describing 2nd Lt. Ashworth's role. Is that correct?



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us