Jump to content
andy brown

someone out there knows all about thiis Part 2

Recommended Posts

Part one is getting to crowded chasing its own tail ..

 

I like many of you when I was scratching around in the Archives year after year couldnt see why this burial actually took place it just didnt fit into any of the known procedures used at that time that was until I came across some notes containing the wrath of Winston Churchill a couple of years after he lost the 45 election ..It seemed he had waited for this moment to vent partly his frustration in ever loosing the election and more to the point loosing it to as he saw them a a crowd of trade union loosers ..at that moment in time the labour party were faced with drumming up all that was required to defend the country from an anticipated Russian invasion and not loking very convincing ..Churchill blew his top and tore into opposition like a chain saw ..pointing out amongst many other things that after the first war as he was in the position to do so he ..Quote " In 1919 I recovered as many weapons as were made vast amounts of weapons I had them greased and oiled and well wrapped and kept in safe places ,They dont go off they dont go sour they are not like cheese or milk and when the blitz of London and other Cities I bought the gun out to defend the country and none of you stopped to ask where had I bought them from...

When you think that what he had done in secret and for twenty years had kept them safe yet he wasnt in office he was landscape painting most of the time in france so who was it that was working behind the scenes on his behalf who was it watching his back for him ? then the last part of his rant is Quote ; What happened to all of the vehicles I put by after the war (ww2) you gave them all away ..the six million rifles you through in the north sea ..and he ended with Quote I and the prime minister have been holding talks about this issue ;;what it boils down to is that winston openly admits he had been stealing weapons ,had he won the election he wouldnt have had to admit that to anyone but when you consider we never made any payments to the WW1 lease lend and winston had most of it in store and again theres my father and others collecting them up so he could do it all again ...now it could be that the labour party started to panic and earmarked enough tanks to balance the books and smartly buried them I dont know but sure as hell they didnt want the Americans going through the books. my father had to report prior to the off to then Major General Slim who was in charge of this little campaign ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very thought provoking, although I am not sure that Winston meant that he stole anything. He might simply have meant that he had arranged the weapons to be stored in normal conditions, as well as the weapons he managed to get distributed to certain groups around the world. Of course, that does not mean that no one was diverting things into more unusual storage locations.

 

However, other than telling us what you know, what is it you would like to know? I mean, there is a variety of experts here, but how can they help you?

 

trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask you again please provide proof, not your memories, of what you have stated. If not refer the Forum to other official sources that may be checked and authenticated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the clue in the title maybe?

 

Andy seems to be asking if there is anyone else out there with knowledge of the incident - be it anecdotal or evidential - who can corroborate his understanding / memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread and really struggled as to whether to reply or just to keep reading it and see where it is going. It does seem to be heading towards the buried Nazi train, buried spitfires, Jeep in a crate category. “If I believe in it enough it must be true”.

 

The problem with this whole saga is that you have not provided a shred of evidence apart from your memories, supposition and what can be found on the internet.

 

The only potential evidence is that you say that you found hundreds of “ident plates” that were taken from Whitehall to a Scrapyard for destruction. So, that raises a few questions:

 

What were these plates off and what did they have written on them? What is your thoughts behind them being removed? Why would they go to the effort of removing them from a vehicle about to be buried? What were they doing in Whitehall? Not much money in a few pounds of light scrap like this so why were they taken to a scrap yard instead of dumped? If they were taken for destruction why did the yard sell them? If you did buy them why only buy 40? Did you keep any photos of them? You referred to the auction catalogue and lot number. Do you have a copy of it?

 

I am sure that you won’t take this in the spirit that this is intended but you might be better off with the Daily Mail as opposed to the people that you describe as "who know they know everything".

Edited by Great War truck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like GWT above I have kept out of this till now but I have to say that I agree with him.

 

If Andy's reasion for starting this thread was to find out if anyone here knew anything about the buried tanks, I think it is clear that either they don't know or that they choose not to join in.

 

We are then left with Andy's account of his childhood and politics. This started in a style of "I know lots of secret stuff that I won't tell you silly enthusiasts" which I find insulting, and has now developed into a debate about Churchill's activities which is not going to provide evidence about wether any tanks are actually buried anywhere.

 

Since it seems that the government will not let Andy (or presumably anyone else) dig up this six acres of concrete can I suggest that Andy tells us precisely where it is so that we can all look it up on Google Earth.

 

I assume that Andy knows about the thousands of WW2 tanks that were cut up for scrap in the '40s and '50s. I am at a loss to understand why the ones in question would not have been added to the scrap pile where they would have drawn no comment at all rather than been the subject of this secret burial - or were they to be dug up later and recommisioned?

 

David

Edited by David Herbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't write it all off just yet, the land andy is speaking about has been ear marked for re development and when it does the story will be confirmed or proved wrong.

be nice to find a thousand tanks. i'd be quite happy if i found just one buried tank. i've been looking long enough for one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the story to be true as well, although even if it isn't it is still very interesting - and the personal memories are excellent!

 

trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the start of this thread there as been no positive information or answers to direct questions forthcoming. As a result I spent five minutes putting together some information based on facts and figures. I present them here with no bias whatsoever and will leave those who may be interested to draw their own conclusions or challenge them as they see fit.

 

 

 

It would appear from Andy's narrative that the tanks were of US manufacture so it is safe to assume that they would be Shermans of later Mk's the cost of a Sherman in 1942 was $33,000

 

Again form Andy's narrative his Father was involved in burying 326 tanks

 

So 326 x $33,000 = $10,758,000 total cost for the tanks involved at time of manufacture

 

The exchange rate on the $ to the £ in 1945 (and up to 1949) was $4 to £1

 

Cost of 326 tanks in £ = 2.69M

 

Under the terms of the Anglo American loan negotiated in 1945 the cost of war material still held by the British of US origin was written down to 10 cents on the dollar

 

Therefore the 326 tanks would now be worth $10,758,00/10 = $1,075,800

 

At $4 to the £ this equates to a total discounted cost of £268,950

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Adrian's more accurate figure for later Mk's of Sherman the total discounted cost increases from £268,950 to £383,050

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it might also be a useful exercise to calculate the size of hole needed to bury 326 tanks for this purpose I have taken Adrian's lead and used the dimensions for the M4A4

 

Iv'e converted the imperial measurements to metric and the results are as follows:

 

The size of hole to turret top for one tank would be 2.5m x 6.1m x 3m assuming the tank fits the hole exactly.

 

If 326 tanks were buried nose to tail in a single line this would require a trench 1.98Km long 2.5m wide and 3m deep to turret top.

 

A more likely situation would be some form of square array for the sake of the argument lets assume 10 tanks wide

the hole now becomes 199m long 25m wide and 3m deep

 

All of the above assumes there is no space left between vehicles in any direction.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A more likely situation would be some form of square array for the sake of the argument lets assume 10 tanks wide

the hole now becomes 199m long 25m wide and 3m deep

 

All of the above assumes there is no space left between vehicles in any direction.

 

Pete

 

So, is that about 1.3 acres, as the minimum possible area?

 

trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, is that about 1.3 acres, as the minimum possible area?

 

trevor

 

That's about it I recon Trevor, but realistically I would think 2 acres and at least 4m to 5m deep either way that is a very big hole to dig and more importantly an awful lot of spoil to get rid off. Again a more realistic proposition would be to use an existing hole in the form of a quarry or sand pit.

 

However I still can't reconcile the need to bury tanks that as the figures have illustrated did not represent anything in terms of outstanding cost and represented a much better investment being stored in case of need.

 

Pete

Edited by Pete Ashby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasons to bury?

 

 

  • Prevent the enemy getting the stuff if it can't be recovered
  • To stop the stuff being sold in the local economy if it is not worth recovering
  • Someone intends to dig the stuff up at a later stage
  • The stuff needs to be disposed of quickly
  • Any other?

 

 

The USAAF plane parts dumps excavated in recent years in East Anglia contained a high percentage of stainless steel - the other metals (steel / aluminium etc) having been recycled from the plane dumps/ bases.

Why? Because after the war there was no easy way to recycle s/steel and it was consequently worthless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah - buried tanks - very good detective work there, Ruxy!

 

smiley-sherlock.gif

 

Smiley digging.gif

Edited by N.O.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few details

 

As there appears to be an interest in the area these would take up this might help :- two pits dug nose to tail approx; 250yds apart width 90ft depth 16ft no idea of the length only that one pit was longer than the other ..Many of the plates I saw and some I bought were quite early for instance a couple of Southerby plates as follows Churchill Mk 2 Nov; 41..Churchill Mk4 1942. yes that probably puts them outside of lease.lend money many of those plates I saw were in Sand or buff paint some buff and black or brown all had been chiseled off some had the hex: hole where the head of the bolt pulled through the plate instead off shearing ..,chisel must have worn blunt !! ..I figure you will have a problem with the 16 ft ! the reason for this was that they needed the space because on top of the tanks they bulldozed hunreds of tons of spares and used I was told an M6 not exactly sure what that is to crush everything down between the turrets , he did say this M6 had no turret a wide seat where the turret area was which at a push could seat five people and it drunk so much fuel it needed filling three times a day .this will no doubt raise more cries of dis-belief within the ranks ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I was wondering whether spares were included, although I kind of assumed that one could 'lose' the requisite spares in various governments warehouses. Still, maybe it is better to sacrifice some spares to fill up the gaps before applying whatever system was used to lay concrete on top of them? Sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

I just wonder what kind of spares they might have been?

 

trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....Quote " In 1919 I recovered as many weapons as were made vast amounts of weapons I had them greased and oiled and well wrapped and kept in safe places ,They dont go off they dont go sour they are not like cheese or milk and when the blitz of London and other Cities I bought the gun out to defend the country and none of you stopped to ask where had I bought them from...... ..

 

I think this statement is based on truth, but inaccurate, it is confirmed in several sources that Churchill obtained a lot of small arms, indeed enough to equip an army, after Dunkirk. But he had not stored these himself, these 1918 vintage weapons were obtained from stores in the US, who had put them away them after the end of the 'Great War'.

 

Churchill was very good at rhetoric, I suppose in modern terms he was his own 'spin doctor'.

 

jch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this statement is based on truth, but inaccurate, it is confirmed in several sources that Churchill obtained a lot of small arms, indeed enough to equip an army, after Dunkirk. But he had not stored these himself, these 1918 vintage weapons were obtained from stores in the US, who had put them away them after the end of the 'Great War'.

 

Churchill was very good at rhetoric, I suppose in modern terms he was his own 'spin doctor'.

 

jch

 

You think as in assume or calculated guess ' whichever it is it is misleading try Hansard you might laern something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hansard? Is that the parliamentary debate records for the house of commons and house of Lords?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...