TIGHAR
Historic Aircraft Recovery and Preservation => War / Service Related Aircraft topics => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on April 14, 2012, 08:22:31 AM
-
News from the BBC Burmas Buried Spitfires (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17710598)
-
News from the BBC Burmas Buried Spitfires (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17710598)
Sounds like good news Chris. If we can get them restored we would have something to put on board the 2 new aircraft carriers under construction instead of having to wait 10 years. Only us Brits could build carriers and not have planes to put on them ;D
-
Ah, beat me to the punch on this one. Although I'm kind of doubtful the planes will be in near perfect condition, bearing in mind the climate there, still ... WOW.
LTM,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
It's an interesting story. I would be interested to know what the long term plans are for these aircraft,will they be conserved properly rather than "restord"? will they be displayed in museums as original examples of an iconic aircraft,or like most Spits will they be restored to the point of being a virtual replica and painted in bogus markings? and will the recovery be carried out using archaeological best practice?.
I don't wish to rain on anyones campfire and would love to see them conserved and displayed properly.
-
Were Spitfires, or other aircraft for that matter, shipped in crates. I've seen pictures of separated fuselages and wings being hosited aboard cargo ships and lined up awaiting shipment, but never any in crates per se. Sort of like the US governent having crates of leftover jeeps stacked here and there. I never saw any proof of that either. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I've always loved the Spitfire and would really like for this to be true.
-
I've seen Jeeps in crates, and one Triumph motorcycle in a crate, as well as (much later) Land Rovers in crates. It would seem that it was not uncommon for a manufacturing country to allow shipment of "CKD" (Completetely Knocked Down) vehicles after the war...
-
During WWII the U.S. shipped a large amount of aircraft partially assembled in crates. I have references and photo's in storage that show aircraft from L-4's to B-26 Marauders being assembled in the open air. There are many references to the P-40B's of the AVG in China, P-39's, P-40's at Guadalcanal, P-47B and C's being assembled in Britain. There is no reason to assume the British manufacturers didn't ship thier aircraft in the same manner.
Brad
-
Also found on AVWeb....
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Lost_Spitfire_Squadron_206526-1.html (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Lost_Spitfire_Squadron_206526-1.html)
....tb
-
Reading through the various news reports and watching the short piece on the BBC One Show last night the picture is about as clear as mud,though this could be due to poor reporting!.
It seems the presumed location of the buried Spits has been confirmed by geophysics but until a dig takes place the actual condition of the aircraft(assuming it is the Spitfires they have located and not a general dump) can't really be confirmed. While there's no hard and fast rule over airfield and equipment dumps there was a tendency to crush whatever was being buried,eg by driving over it with a tracked vehicle or burning it. Just consider the size of hole required to bury one Spitfire and how much soil it would displace...
I really hope this is not the case and these aircraft are located still crated,and that at least one will be preserved in "as found" condition.
Matt.
-
Were Spitfires, or other aircraft for that matter, shipped in crates. I've seen pictures of separated fuselages and wings being hosited aboard cargo ships and lined up awaiting shipment, but never any in crates per se. Sort of like the US governent having crates of leftover jeeps stacked here and there. I never saw any proof of that either. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I've always loved the Spitfire and would really like for this to be true.
I can't quote for Spitfires per se, but in his history "Fortress Malta", James Holland mentions that the early Axis attacks on the island were met by Gloster Gladiators hastily assembled from their crates; the planes having been intended for R.N. carrier use and delivered to Malta for trans-shipment to their assigned carrier. So crating aircraft was a practice used by the UK.
-
Chris, the Spitfires that were sent to help defend Malta were flown there from the Carrier 'Eagle' in the Med'. If there is any truth in the Burma Spifires story I would guess they were shipped there as opposed to flown in from a carrier, too risky being so close to Japanese held territory.
http://maltagc70.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/7-march-1942-first-15-spitfires-arrive-doubling-maltas-air-force/ (http://maltagc70.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/7-march-1942-first-15-spitfires-arrive-doubling-maltas-air-force/)
-
That was the point I was making, they had to reassemble obsolescent a/c from the shipment crates.
Indeed, Malta's early air defence was a scandal as it wasn't recognised as a vital stronghold by London at first. They urgently needed state of the art fighters, but were only sent Hurricane Mk 1's, not even the Mk 2's available at the time, and then in insufficient numbers to cope with the heavy attacks. Poor organization when replacements (even the later Spitfires from Eagle, Furious & Wasp) landed meant that many were destroyed on the ground before they could be refuelled and armed - the pilots kit being stowed in the ammunition bays. The guns had not even been range harmonised and even the radios were not set-up. It took a worryingly long time before all these errors were corrected.
-
Sort of like the US governent having crates of leftover jeeps stacked here and there. I never saw any proof of that either.
You may have never seen proof, I have. I owned one of them crated jeeps. Fort Drum, NY was selling surplus WWII excess equipment in the mid 70's so that they could tear down the substandard warehouse facilities and replace with new ones. Surplus included were WWII Jeeps, being sold in lots of 10 for just over $1,000 a lot which was only slightly more then scrap price. To make a long story short myself and 6 others got together the money and bought a lot of them. When they arrived and you opened the crate it became evident that the crates should have been marked "some assembly required". Also the tires were no good as they were dryrot checked and held air but couldn't be trusted for driving on, so there was the added cost of replacing them and the 6 volt battery. Then it took forever to get a title issued and it registered to be able to drive them.
Trust me they did exist, just had to be in the right place at the right time. As a matter of fact visited the one I used to own back in 2006, though it is a 1945 model it was'nt put together and driven until 1975. I sold it to a friend who still owns it. He doesn't drive it much on the road because they really weren't designed to be comfortable or cruisers. He is still partners in our old deer hunting camp up near Moose Lake and they usually use that to get down those old beatup dirt roads leading to the foothills of the Adirondac Mts. Most of the other guys would'nt even dare to attempt to take their 4WD up those roads.
LTM,
Don
-
On the subject of buried stuff, local rumour has it that Porthcawl habour in South Wales, UK, used to be very much bigger. The story goes at the end of WWII, loads of US Military jeeps, trucks and other vehicles were dumped in there and it was covered over.
You can still see now where the current area of the habour extended way back inland.
Wether true or not, I am unsure, but I am deffinately curious! :-)
-
"Campaigners set to win return of 36 Castle Bromwich-made Spitfires to Britain." (http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/08/16/campaigners-set-to-win-return-of-36-castle-bromwich-made-spitfires-to-britain-97319-31631956/#ixzz23ja0DLBE) August 16, 2012.
-
Marty, that's great news. Sure hope it works out!
-
Looks like there are alot more Spitfires than previously thought!
I think the ol' boy will make his money back! ( $210,000 ) What do you think?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/17/myanmar-signs-deal-to-dig-up-buried-wwii-planes/
Dave
-
Perhaps TIGHAR may want to review Mr. cundells' legal/political maneuvers that he used to thwart the attempts of Steve Brooks to undermine him and take over the project, Should this become a similar issue for TIGHAR in the future.
Dave
-
As you are no doubt aware, the first lot of 36 Spitfires buried in Burma in the final months of WW2 is set to be excavated next month (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/buried-spitfires-set-to-take-to-the-sky-20121129-2ahj0.html and http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/338307). This will be a big project for Dave Cundall because he has worked hard to investigate rumors of Spitfires being buried in Burma. Now that Burma has turned to liberal democracy after half a century of military rule, it's now easier for the British and Burmese governments to cooperate with each other in recovering WW2 aircraft in Burma. As a matter of fact, it's strange that even after WW2, the Brits didn't want to take the Spitfires that had arrived in Burma back to the UK because they were afraid that the Spitfires might fall into the hands of Burmese independence fighters. Fortunately, the Brits have already been so kind to apologize for their poor treatment of colonized peoples in the Third World that they have developed a willingness to return WW2 aviation treasures currently buried in SE Asia back to their birthplace in England (they could also set up an air museum in Burma to accommodate some of the Spitfires given the limitations of space).
-
- Hold on! - What's that I see in that murky water inside the crate? My God, it's a pair of Vera Lynn's knickers. :o
-
News Update (got to be better than camel watching) ;D
AMEN to that. Although it's faint praise: even the opening of Al Capone's safe was better than the camel watching, lol. In contrast, IMO the Spitfire story is highly interesting and potentially has great significance for aviation history.
-
- Hold on! - What's that I see in that murky water inside the crate? My God, it's a pair of Vera Lynn's knickers. :o
That would be "Dame" Vera Lynn Chris, gotta give royalty her due and she wouldn't like you talking about her knickers. :o ;D
-
News Update (got to be better than camel watching) ;D
AMEN to that. Although it's faint praise: even the opening of Al Capone's safe was better than the camel watching, lol. In contrast, IMO the Spitfire story is highly interesting and potentially has great significance for aviation history.
Fer sure Alan, save for the fact that it was "Jerry Rivers" who blew that one. ::)
-
From the above link:
Among the team is 91-year-old war veteran Stanley Coombe, who says he witnessed the burial of the aircraft.
"I never thought I would be allowed to come back and see where Spitfires have been buried," he said.
"It's been a long time since anybody believed what I said until David Cundall came along."
Apparently the memory and credibility of Mr. Coombe, age 91, was not an issue. Can you see where I'm going with this? Anyone...
LTM,
Dave
-
From the above link:
Among the team is 91-year-old war veteran Stanley Coombe, who says he witnessed the burial of the aircraft.
"I never thought I would be allowed to come back and see where Spitfires have been buried," he said.
"It's been a long time since anybody believed what I said until David Cundall came along."
Apparently the memory and credibility of Mr. Coombe, age 91, was not an issue. Can you see where I'm going with this? Anyone...
LTM,
Dave
Should we assume that you are referring to Betty Klenck's memory at her age. I think Betty will be 91 this year.
-
From the above link:
Among the team is 91-year-old war veteran Stanley Coombe, who says he witnessed the burial of the aircraft.
"I never thought I would be allowed to come back and see where Spitfires have been buried," he said.
"It's been a long time since anybody believed what I said until David Cundall came along."
Apparently the memory and credibility of Mr. Coombe, age 91, was not an issue. Can you see where I'm going with this? Anyone...
LTM,
Dave
Should we assume that you are referring to Betty Klenck's memory at her age. I think Betty will be 91 this year.
Yes Bob I was. I think we could add Emily Sikuly and Dana Randolph to that list.
Dave
-
Apparently the memory and credibility of Mr. Coombe, age 91, was not an issue.
I would have thought Mr. Coombe's own statement:
It's been a long time since anybody believed what I said until David Cundall came along.
and the fact that something is only happening when he is 91, suggest that "memory and credibility" were in fact major issues.
Also, to which set of conflicting memories are you drawing an analogy? The Niku folk who remember some sort of wreckage? The other folk who saw AE, her belongings, or the Electra on various Japanese-held islands? The soldiers who found the airplane in New Britain?
I think archaeologists (as well as criminal justice personnel) have found that anecdotal evidence, such as personal memory long after the fact, is always problematic, deserves the highest scrutiny, and requires independent confirmation by factual evidence.
-
Apparently the memory and credibility of Mr. Coombe, age 91, was not an issue.
I would have thought Mr. Coombe's own statement:
It's been a long time since anybody believed what I said until David Cundall came along.
and the fact that something is only happening when he is 91, suggest that "memory and credibility" were in fact major issues.
Also, to which set of conflicting memories are you drawing an analogy? The Niku folk who remember some sort of wreckage? The other folk who saw AE, her belongings, or the Electra on various Japanese-held islands? The soldiers who found the airplane in New Britain?
I think archaeologists (as well as criminal justice personnel) have found that anecdotal evidence, such as personal memory long after the fact, is always problematic, deserves the highest scrutiny, and requires independent confirmation by factual evidence.
You will have to take that observation up with Mr. Coombe or Mr. Cundall.
As for my analogy, scrutiny is good. Overbearing scrutiny is counter productive, leading to circular arguments and missed opportunities. Sometimes you just have to believe.
Dave
-
I think archaeologists (as well as criminal justice personnel) have found that anecdotal evidence, such as personal memory long after the fact, is always problematic, deserves the highest scrutiny, and requires independent confirmation by factual evidence.
C'mon Alan, it is not often that the criminal justice personal are dealing with 75 year old anecdotal evidence, be it physical or especially memorial. I think you will find that the same is true of archaeological as well. Mr. Coombe has carried this memory nearly his whole life. Do you really think he would skew it after all these years. You nor I can attest to his lucidity but I would imagine he is quite lucid. I had a very large family with many aunts and uncles who lived into their 90's and 100's who remembered things about me when I was five or six yo that I had long since forgotten.
"requires independent confirmation by factual evidence" Not always Alan, not always. That is just your opinion and is not a legal definition for evidentiary matters. Who is alive today that can do that for Mr. Coombe. Of course eye witness testimony "in a court of law" has it's problems, but that is not what this is. I will have to agree with Dave that, "Apparently the memory and credibility of Mr. Coombe, age 91, was not an issue."
-
C'mon Alan, it is not often that the criminal justice personal are dealing with 75 year old anecdotal evidence, be it physical or especially memorial. I think you will find that the same is true of archaeological as well. Mr. Coombe has carried this memory nearly his whole life. Do you really think he would skew it after all these years. You nor I can attest to his lucidity but I would imagine he is quite lucid. I had a very large family with many aunts and uncles who lived into their 90's and 100's who remembered things about me when I was five or six yo that I had long since forgotten.
"requires independent confirmation by factual evidence" Not always Alan, not always. That is just your opinion and is not a legal definition for evidentiary matters. Who is alive today that can do that for Mr. Coombe. Of course eye witness testimony "in a court of law" has it's problems, but that is not what this is. I will have to agree with Dave that, "Apparently the memory and credibility of Mr. Coombe, age 91, was not an issue."
C'mon, Bob. Let me first clear up what may be my misunderstanding of D. McDaniel's phrase "not an issue" and the way I address it in my post. I was trying to say that apparently a lack of general belief in Mr. Coombe's memory (as indicated by his own quote and by the time elapsed) caused the Spitfire search not to be pursued nearly as soon as it could have been, had he been taken at face value. Thus "memory and credibility" of an eyewitness, without other evidence, were major issues affecting whether and when a serious search began. Reading your and Mr. McDaniel's replies, I believe you may be using "credibility was not an issue" to mean "Mr. Coombe was right and his memory accurate". That is not the point I was addressing, I have no knowledge or prejudice whether he is right or wrong . . . when they explore further into the crate we will know more. I meant to cast no personal aspersions whatsoever on his credibility or lucidity, and in fact my guess, based on finding even the crate, is that he is right.
The rest of my post attempted to discuss more generally why the memory of a single witness (not Mr. Coombe in particular) was not, and perhaps should not be, taken as gospel truth without factual support. The fact that all the personal memories supporting all the different AE disappearance theories cannot possibly be true was offered as one example. As for the rest of it, and your numerous comments, I am going to take the lazy way out and provide a quote from our friendly neighboorhood archaeologist, Dr. King:
We have no basis for saying that any alleged eyewitness or other informant is or is not credible. For the purposes of this paper, we assume that all such informants were telling what they believed to be the truth, though perhaps shaded in some cases to meet what they understood to be social expectations. However, this does not lead us to assume that any informant described “objective” reality – that is, reality as it might be perceived by another party. There are good reasons to view all the eyewitness and other informant stories with skepticism, even while accepting the honesty and good will of those who have told them.
In the last fifty years, there has been great psychological interest in the reliability of memory, and a good deal of research on the subject – notably including the memories of eyewitnesses. Much of this interest and research has been stimulated by growing concern in legal and law enforcement circles about the conviction of innocent people by courts of law based on eyewitness testimony. Much has also been stimulated by concerns about the conviction and imprisonment of parents based on the uncorroborated stories of adult children who say they have recovered long-suppressed memories of childhood abuse. Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington is perhaps the best known and most widely published researcher in this field; her 1979 book Eyewitness Testimony (2nd edition 1996) is probably the most widely available generally accessible text on the subject, though many other scholars around the world have studied and published in the field.
What these studies tend to show is that memory is a highly malleable phenomenon; our memories can be significantly transformed by influences from outside our heads – notably by the suggestions of interviewers. As Loftus puts it:
"A growing body of research shows that new, postevent information often becomes incorporated into memory, supplementing and altering a person’s recollection. New “information” can invade us, like a Trojan horse, precisely because we do not detect its influence" (Loftus 1996:vii).
That excerpt is taken from Dr. King's recent paper here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/AEinMarianas.html).
Note that Dr. King clearly also makes a logical connection between archaeological and legal circles, as did I; I did not expect that to be controversial. Finally, as to "independent confirmation", I would not expect anyone alive today to "do that for Mr. Coombe" -- and even if there were another nonagenarian, that would simply be another personal memory. By "factual" I meant something much more tangible; in this particular case it boils down to: is there an airplane inside the crate? We'll soon know; I bet there is.
-
C'mon, Bob. Let me first clear up what may be my misunderstanding of D. McDaniel's phrase "not an issue" and the way I address it in my post. I was trying to say that apparently a lack of general belief in Mr. Coombe's memory (as indicated by his own quote and by the time elapsed) caused the Spitfire search not to be pursued nearly as soon as it could have been, had he been taken at face value. Thus "memory and credibility" of an eyewitness, without other evidence, were major issues affecting whether and when a serious search began. Reading your and Mr. McDaniel's replies, I believe you may be using "credibility was not an issue" to mean "Mr. Coombe was right and his memory accurate". That is not the point I was addressing, I have no knowledge or prejudice whether he is right or wrong . . . when they explore further into the crate we will know more. I meant to cast no personal aspersions whatsoever on his credibility or lucidity, and in fact my guess, based on finding even the crate, is that he is right.
The rest of my post attempted to discuss more generally why the memory of a single witness (not Mr. Coombe in particular) was, and perhaps should not be, taken as gospel truth without factual support. The fact that all the personal memories supporting all the different AE disappearance theories cannot possibly be true was offered as one example. As for the rest of it, and your numerous comments, I am going to take the lazy way out and provide a quote from our friendly neighboorhood archaeologist, Dr. King:
Note that Dr. King clearly also makes a logical connection between archaeological and legal circles, as did I; I did not expect that to be controversial. Finally, as to "independent confirmation", I would not expect anyone alive today to "do that for Mr. Coombe" -- and even if there were another nonagenarian, that would simply be another personal memory. By "factual" I meant something much more tangible; in this particular case it boils down to: is there an airplane inside the crate? We'll soon know; I bet there is.
Point well taken Alan. What disturbs me is finding out that there was water in the crate they put the camera in. Hopefully that is not the case with all of them. That will make restoration a much more daunting task as well as expensive. I Google Earth'd the site and it is a very small area and is right next to a major road that I doubt was there many years ago. Hopefully some of them will not be under that road bed as well. I also believe that they are there.
Cheers,
-
Rather an abrupt about-turn; odd. :-\ ???
-
This one (http://www.itv.com/news/2013-01-18/there-are-no-spitfires-the-dream-has-ended-in-the-hunt-for-buried-british-planes/) sounds even more grim.
Also I have seen a report that the Burma Spitfires Facebook page says:
"Update from David: Burmese wouldn't let them dig where the eyewitness statements said the aircraft were located so the whole thing was futile. He still believes and is fighting on..."
Can't confirm that as I am not on Facebook.
It is all getting very strange . . .
-
another one (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10177803.Buried_Spitfires_is_a_tall_story__says_RAF_veteran/)
-
another one (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10177803.Buried_Spitfires_is_a_tall_story__says_RAF_veteran/)
Randy,
Just read the article. Respectfully, if Officer Pat Woodward's memory is as good as his knowledge of digging equipment in 1946, "And there were no hole digging machines in those days. If you wanted to dig a hole that size you had to dig it by hand which would have taken lots of people to do", then I would question the veracity of his statement. Steam shovels were in existence before the 1900's and this is an example of one in 1908. That's one hell of a big rock. Add to that, who's to say that they didn't bury those planes after he left and he didn't truly know about it. His story should be taken with a grain of salt imo. I have high hopes that David Cundall will find them somewhere over there. He deserves at least a chance to continue.
-
FWIW, I've been deeply suspicious of these claims from the start. According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21074699), the archaeologists seem to agree.
-
FWIW, I've been deeply suspicious of these claims from the start. According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21074699), the archaeologists seem to agree.
Ha Ha. I see how to use quote. I think Mr. Gillespie is right and Mr. Lanz is wrong. Mr. Lanz, was your picture taken in Rangoon, Burma? If not, I think there weren't any of those steam shovels available there. I think, too, that intelligent people would not bury valuable airplanes for no reason. Wasn't there plenty of opportunity to get them out of there if they were really there?
-
I think, too, that intelligent people would not bury valuable airplanes for no reason. Wasn't there plenty of opportunity to get them out of there if they were really there?
Andrea, at the end of WW2 the US armed forces got rid of millions of dollars worth of brand new equipment that just kept arriving overseas because the "pipeline" could not be shut off quickly enough. My Dad told me of barge loads of new equipment that were sunk in the Pacific after the war ended. In Europe, the US Army Air Force "bulldozed" hundreds of new P-51 Mustang fighter planes, with only ferry time on them, into large piles and burned them. The thinking was that it would have cost more to ship them back to the states than they were now worth. I question that logic but it seems to have been in vogue at the time. Maybe some British commander used his head and decided that the planes might be useful someday and disposed of them in a manner that they could be retrieved if needed. Just my thoughts of course.
-
Looks like this ones a no goer :(
Search for buried spitifres called off (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21483187)
-
Looks like this ones a no goer :(
Whad I tell ya?
-
Does TIGHARS Operation Sepulchre (http://tighar.org/Projects/Opsep.html) have parallels to this?
Not really. The purpose of Operation Sepulchre was to check out stories of WWII German aircraft surviving in underground hangars. We conducted an investigation and found the stories to be unsupported. The "Buried Spitfires" people skipped that step and announced a discovery before anything had been discovered.