Landships II

Rectalgia · Legend

The Wootton Papers

Ironsides · Legend

Well the first image and paragraph dont match if he was sent home in 1917 how did he manage to see a Renault Ft in action? the picture must have been painted later and�maybe from a photo how much later is the question....

Cheers wink

Hughbearson · General

Are you guys trying to imply that the Daily Male-ERR;Mail is unreliable??!!
Also, how could he draw tanks that accurate from memory? Only someone like Mickk could do that!

-- Edited by Hughbearson on Tuesday 14th of September 2010 07:26:55 PM

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

The rhomboids look as if they were also drawn from a photo, most tend to look more like an impression of a tank rather than a specific mark.

40 tonnes?� the over weight bit doesn't bother me, did the Army use Tonnes or Tons?

�

James H · Legend

Hughbearson wrote:
Are you guys trying to imply that the Daily Male-ERR;Mail is unreliable?

Remember the "newly released colour photographs" a couple of years ago?

Hughbearson · General

Or how they accused chris morris of being a paedophile, next to an article on 15yr old Charlotte Church?
http://www.randall100.f2s.com/images/charlotte.jpg

Rectalgia · Legend

LincolnTanker wrote:
...did the Army use Tonnes or Tons?

Tons at that time (and long afterward, I believe). I suppose a fair amount of metric usage may have crept in unofficially to aid allied co-operation on the continent but that would mostly be related to distances in my opinion, FWIW. Liquid measure too maybe, to a lesser degree. All-in-all, while he is talking about 'yards' he would hardly be talking about 'tonnes' IMO. Well spotted.

Hugh ... fear not, all know the breathless disclosures of the British tabloid press are the unadulterated truth, verity of the highest degree penned by professional journalists of undoubted integrity and limitless compassion. Australians must have a part in it.

Rectalgia · Legend

The etymology of the word (tonne) in English usage, in various sources, states 1905 or 1920-25 and in the modern usage (as a weight) in France from 1877, with much earlier French usage presumably for the cask, similar to the English tun, which I venture would be by far the more common association in English, until quite recent times or after WW2 at least. That's what I was taught in French classes anyway (by Mr Hegney who would chastise recalcitrants with a piece of chalk thrown at the head with uncanny accuracy and sufficient velocity to make ducking an impossibility, sometimes a with a wooden-backed chalk duster instead - ah, one learned quickly in those days!)

So that's not a lot of use except to suggest it would be unusual for an Englishman to be using tonne in a wartime diary, talking about a British tank. And I'm not sure about the evidently best-quality acid-free (non-yellowing) paper in wartime either - though I suppose it's quite likely for someone with a graphic arts bent.

kieffer · Commander in Chief

I think it is legitime to question the authenticity of any piece of art, so:
I was a bit surprised too about the paper quality, very white. At the other hand, a 'good' faker wouldn't take fresh paper. It's pro and con here I think. But it is not too difficult anymore to analyse ink, paper etc. so the truth will come out some day (if there is money involved it certainly will).
The drawings, well they could have been made after postcards which is not a proof of fakery of course.
The text, 'the Germans are still in Westhoek and Glenconre(sic)' I don't know what to think of that. As far as I know Westhoek (that is The Westhoek) is a whole region, not a wood or village. it sounds a bit that somebody heard a well known name and used it.
An intriguing theme!

Regards, Kieffer

kieffer · Commander in Chief

Rectalgia wrote:

�
LincolnTanker wrote:
...did the Army use Tonnes or Tons?
Tons at that time (and long afterward, I believe). I suppose a fair amount of metric usage may have crept in unofficially to aid allied co-operation on the continent but that would mostly be related to distances in my opinion, FWIW. Liquid measure too maybe, to a lesser degree.

a ton, nautical, measures 100 cubical English feet or 2.83M cubical. That's 'registerton' still used for ships. Used for weight it is 1016kg.
Again, you should think a 'technical' officer manning a tank would have known the right spelling of the word.

regards, Kieffer

Rectalgia · Legend

Yes (ton/tonne). Always a possibility of hasty transliteration/typing by a modern person from the (supposed) old papers. But I think there is real room to doubt the authenticity.

Good heavens, all of us 'here' are in the wrong business, aren't we? And all those unanswered questions to which we could invent perfectly plausible answers and publish them as 'rediscovered manuscripts' for the credulous public.

Ah, sorry, one shouldn't even joke about it I guess.

James H · Legend

Hughbearson wrote:

Or how they accused chris morris of being a paedophile, next to an article on 15yr old Charlotte Church?
http://www.randall100.f2s.com/images/charlotte.jpg

I was thinking more of the "newly-released, genuine WW1 colour photographs" the DM published. They were neither newly released, nor colour, nor even genuine.

�

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Now normally the words Mail and Daily are enough to make my blood boil. But there was a 2/Lt K.E. Wootton who fought in the Tank Corps during Third Ypres. He was the commander of the Mark IV Male A28 "Amulet" of 6th Section 2nd Company A Battalion on 31 July 1917. So I don't think that this should be dismissed immediately. It may well be that the pictures were drawn later (quite possibly copied from photographs) and pasted in, but what would interest me is the text of tank commander's previously unknown diary. I am sure that the use of the word "tonne" is a mistake by a young journalist (who probably wasn't even taught Imperial measures!).

Now I need to take a break and recover. I'm so shocked I've just written something in defence of this disgraceful newspaper.

Gwyn

-- Edited by Gwyn Evans on Wednesday 15th of September 2010 08:56:54 PM

-- Edited by Gwyn Evans on Wednesday 15th of September 2010 08:58:25 PM

Rectalgia · Legend

Take heart Gwyn, other sources have carried the report too, I think. At least the DM hasn't published pictures of a B17 on the surface of the moon (nor the breathless follow-up "WW2 Bomber Vanishes From Moon"). And that inestimable publication did once carry the Jane comic strip so it can be forgiven much on that account alone. It also published monthly (or was it weekly?) bound editions as a service to expatriates - I saw them as a small boy whenever we visited an old English couple who were friends of my parents - so clearly it was a cherished part of the British psyche - and remains so, I would suggest, even if it is largely loved to be despised. Aagh, no, that was the Daily MIRROR, wasn't it?� Oh well.

Yes, there is nothing to prove the documents are fake and some support for the contention they are genuine, going by the comments here. I still think the balance of probability is against them at the moment but that's a long way from dismissing them - and the attribution to a real tank commander is a telling point in favour.

Handwriting style - letter formation, contractions and abbreviations used, contemporary expressions etc. all offer further indications (if not proof positive) to the experts who may be allowed to look at the manuscript. The writing style seems a bit Boys Own Paper-ish to me and that is possibly another item in support for authenticity in my opinion. As long as it wasn't written with a ball-point pen there is more than a small chance it is genuinely a 90-something-year-old manuscript. We shall have to wait for developments I suppose and I certainly hope it is genuine, acting as Devil's advocate doesn't diminish that hope.

Steve

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Thursday 16th of September 2010 04:24:55 AM

kieffer · Commander in Chief

you'll probably all remember the 'scoop' of a German newspaper with a more serious reputation, or magazine, Stern. Bringing the diary of Hitler, then soon came out it was a big fake. It costed the director its job, and the fraudeur had its moment of fame. After doing time in prison he carried on but this time he signed his 'artwork' with his own name and he still does I guess. That is a strange phenomana, people are willing to buy 'original' work from the now famous forger. Recently this happened with another guy (Dutch..) who made quite a carreer, with paintwork from Karel Appel through Picasso, the whole range, a mr. Geert Jan Jansen. He is keeping lectures now, telling frankly about his life as a counterfeiter. As he has a good sense of humour, and as a talented speaker the audience laugh and applaude...no one seems to consider his activities as a crime.
Van Meegeren, his work for years kept away in some museum cellar is shown now and I am sure his work, if any shows up, will do a good price. An interesting thought: when will a forged forgery show up...

regards, Kieffer

Gwyn Evans · Legend

OK - I've done some more digging into Lt Wootton.

As I wrote before, I can first find him as a Second Lieutenant about mid July 1917 and he commanded Mark IV Male 2027 A28 "Amulet" of 6th Section 2nd Company A Battalion on the opening day of Third Battle of Ypres, 31 July 1917. His section commander at the time was Captain Carew (DM has it as Crew).

He also commanded a tank at Cambrai, by which time he had become a Lieutenant. He was the commander of another Mark IV Male A29 "Apollyon II" also of 2nd Company A Battalion on 20 November 1917. Interestingly we know the name of his driver on that day. It was Private George Fagg - the same name as given in the DM as being his driver in Third Ypres. "Apollyon II" received a direct hit that knocked the right 6 pounder off its mounting, smashed the engine and the front of the tank was "almost blown in". One account states "Lt Wootton was badly wounded"; another "Lt K.E. Wootton was wounded in many places".

We also know from the records this Lt Wootton's first name - Kenneth.

So, all looks good to me. And even if the drawings were copied, I wish I could draw like that.

Gwyn

Rectalgia · Legend

Good work Gwyn. Looking again at the pages shown in the DM report, and as others have mentioned in passing, it looks like someone has 'scapbooked' the original in relatively recent times, carefully pasting the pages onto a modern paper backing. So it is looking more authentic to me now and the "hidden away for 90 years" perhaps just a little hyperbolic.

Yes, the drafting is very accomplished generally and the composition looks quite artistic to me. Perhaps he started sketching and painting during rehabilitation or perhaps he was trained before the war - there seems to be a bit of 'professionalism' there. I notice the DM website has slapped a "� Caters" on all the images. Somebody cherishes them (DM put various copyright assertions on most of their images by the look) and this "Caters" owns the images. Perhaps it is the great granddaughter mentioned by DM.

I wonder if his Military Cross citation still exists? The ones for the MM are notoriously difficult (there were so many and many were promulgated without the citations). Apparently even specialists in London Gazette searches frequently have no luck. But there were less MCs (and those were for officers only at that stage, probably treated with more care and respect). Needless to say I'm not an expert and I can't find it. And curse Wootton Bassett, wherever it may be.

kieffer · Commander in Chief

I made some enquiries to a paper specialist friend:
The booklet itself, the color of the paper, the lines and even the stitching: all very well possible. Nothing unusual there, neither on the continent nor in the UK.
Depending on the paper quality it can stay near white, much older books can still look rather new or fresh. My guess is, as said by others here that may be later on the pictures are glued in the booklet. May be they are memoires or letters more than a diary but the latter sounds of course more spectacular in the press.

regards, Kieffer