Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Fancy that.


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3421
Date:
Fancy that.
Permalink   


Tony Robinson's World War I: "General John Monash came up with the idea of the Carrier Tank, that could carry as many supplies as 150 men." - Australian historian.

You live and learn.

 



__________________

"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: 1784
Date:
Permalink   

James H wrote:

Tony Robinson's World War I: "General John Monash came up with the idea of the Carrier Tank, that could carry as many supplies as 150 men." - Australian historian.

You live and learn.

 


 It's clowns like that which make it embarrassing to be an Australian. He/she/it would have been better employed counting convicts or writing diatribes about the conditions for colonial women.

Charlie



__________________


Sergeant

Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink   

James H wrote:

Tony Robinson's World War I: "General John Monash came up with the idea of the Carrier Tank, that could carry as many supplies as 150 men." - Australian historian.

You live and learn.

 


Sounds about right, a 6" howitzer carried by a Gun Carrier was around 7300lbs, I assume the load carrying capability of a supply version would be around the same, divided between 150 men gives 48lbs each.

jh

 



__________________
jch


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3421
Date:
Permalink   

I've found the episode on Youtube. The historian is Mat (sic) McLachlan. http://battlefields.com.au/

"He (Monash) came up with this great innovation, which was a carrier tank, and this tank could carry up supplies and ammunition to the men, and this tank could do the work of 1,200 soldiers."

So I correct the arithmetic, but not the history.

 

There is, of course, a lot of WWI stuff on the tv at the mo. The other night there was a doco about the early part of the War. Obviously translated, then emailed to the voice-over bloke, who has no specialist knowledge and just reads what's put in front of him. Hence "fire-step" being described as "shooting-bench" (banc de tir).

Then some footage featuring men wearing Adrians while the narration is about the French call-up. I thought was a bit too early for the period under discussion. In fact, there was something odd about the Adrians. Enter officer, wearing a kepi that shows he is Serbian. Ho hum.

 

 



__________________

"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.



Sergeant

Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink   

James H wrote:

I've found the episode on Youtube. The historian is Mat (sic) McLachlan. http://battlefields.com.au/

"He (Monash) came up with this great innovation, which was a carrier tank, and this tank could carry up supplies and ammunition to the men, and this tank could do the work of 1,200 soldiers."

So I correct the arithmetic, but not the history.

 

 


 That is one of those meaningless claims that could be right, as he gives no timescale.  It's like the old "If it takes 5 men, 10 hours to plough a field, how long would he take 25 men?" question.

The way you are interpreting the quote makes it patently wrong, however, it is open to wide interpretation, one carrier tank MIGHT replace the work of 1200 men (or rather 1200 man days) over a week or a month, but as the source gives no time reference it's meaningless.

jh



-- Edited by jch_in_uk on Friday 27th of April 2018 03:30:32 PM

__________________
jch


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1784
Date:
Permalink   

The so-called Australian historian turns out to be journalist with a money-making idea. He can lay no claim

to the title "historian" either de facto or by inference. I know the Australian institutions of higher learning have

had falling standards due to greed and corporatisation but I didn't think they had fallen that far - they haven't - so far.

Many Australian journalists have a notable immunity to the truth and evidence - I haven't said that most of them are a "pack of

self-serving wankers" but such a statement isn't far from the mark.

Charlie

 



__________________
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


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard