truthergw Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Saw the program, enjoyed it and was educated at the same time. I also recognised our very own TV star. Now that IS famous! When can we expect to see you on Big Brother, Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT-Guards Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 A great programme, truly brought home (not to put to finer point on it), what a bl***y dangerous job this was. As an ex serviceman myself I'm PBI through and through. Always fancied a bit of the RFC not after watching that. Average life expectancy of 11 days - ****** that! Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Callaghan Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 I thought the program was really well done! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy saunders Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Yes it was an absorbing documentary. I did not know about the unknown airman at Laventie being a plausible candidate for Mannock. I had previously only heard of the grave at La gorgue. The grave at Laventie is in La Gorgue district. I think you are talking about the same one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Although I enjoyed the programme - just how "forgotten", as seemed enlessly repeated, are M and M. Two new biogs on Mannock in the last six or so years, plus the well sellin efforts of Peter Hart seem to me to promote him, at least, to the unforgotten class. Interestingly I did not detect any mention of Mannock's total accredited kills - a fascinating story in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Evans Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Really enjoyed the programme, well done to all involved. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Grundy Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 ...just how "forgotten", as seemed enlessly repeated, are M and M. This aside, I thought it was of the less sensational programmes I've seen of late. But you could see them looking for an angle on how to pitch the programme to a non-specialist audience: their working class hero status; the 'Bloody April' life expectancy figures; Mannock's dread of burning to death (was he really the only one to be scared of such a fate?!); etc. My other half normally runs away every time a Great War documentary/news report comes on in fear of me shouting at the tele when I think they get things wrong. But not this time. Mind you, the comment on Timewatch extra that Ball had scored most of his victories in an SE5 did attract a tut! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Fascinating programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 The squadron in question was formerly Bishop's. It contained, apparently a number of prima donnas - a number (from memory) wealthy Yanks). Although vetoing an ex ranker, they were prepared to accept a committed socialist ex telephone linesman when Mannock was appointed to lead the squadron. Strange that I think; if class was the real issue in the squadron, I cannot but feel that there were other issues. Bishop's squadron appears to have had a reputation for ill discipline. Mannock pulled the squadron off operations and taught it to fly his way and with rather more discipline than it had "enjoyed" under Bishop - that most interesting example of a leading fighter pilot whose kills appear to be largely unwitnessed. Not least of Mannock's skills was that of fighter leader and trainer. Although this was not touched upon in last night's programme, it seems to me to be this attribute which raises him above McCudden and up with Richthofen as both a leading fighter pilot and as a very effective fighter leader. It was good to see the "one-eyed ace" theory left out. The post war story of Mannock's VC and the recalculation of kills would also have made interesting viewing. Many thought (think) that the final figure was rigged to enable a Brit (actually a Paddy) to exceed a Canadian's score. The arguements about the man could go on for ever and it was good that the programme went for the facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Although vetoing an ex ranker, they were prepared to accept a committed socialist ex telephone linesman when Mannock was appointed to lead the squadron. How were they able to veto an ex-ranker though? One imagines that a squadron loosely disciplined would be in need of a disciplinarian leader. I can`t imagine a RN ship vetoing a new captain or a battalion a new CO! Did the higher command of the RFC turn a blind eye to this kind of thing as they must have been aware of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Not least of Mannock's skills was that of fighter leader and trainer. Although this was not touched upon in last night's programme, it seems to me to be this attribute which raises him above McCudden and up with Richthofen as both a leading fighter pilot and as a very effective fighter leader. When McCudden took over B Flight with 56 I believe he was junior in "score" to at least two of his subordinates, Barlow and Rhys-Davids, but after a rather difficult start when on his first day his spending time aligning his guns was incorrectly assumed to be showing off, McCudden easily gained the respect of all members of the prestigous 56 Sqn. During his time as a Flight Commander with 56 Jimmy considered his greatest achievement was the virtual absence of fatalities his Flight sustained. I think 4 in all, but I think only 1 when Jimmy was leading the Flight. I think it was the fear of McCudden's professionalism that concerned 85 Sqn pilots. No more late night parties. Regards, Jonathan S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt_Hazell_Great_Grandson Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsparky Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 An excellant programme. The unknown grave would make an interesting follow on programme to establish if it was Mannock. Life expectancy of 11 days was quite chilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 22 March , 2009 Share Posted 22 March , 2009 Just watched it via my V+ box - an excellent programme all round IMHO. Well done all. Aye Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy saunders Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 An excellant programme. The unknown grave would make an interesting follow on programme to establish if it was Mannock. Life expectancy of 11 days was quite chilling. The recent book by Norman Franks and myself ("Mannock VC") by Grub Street covers the mystery of Mannock's last resting place, as does my article in last month's Aeroplane Monthly. Yes, it would make an interesting "stand alone" documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 unfortunately iplayer is not available here but I have other irons in the fire D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Shropshires Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 Loved the programme, well done to all involved in making it. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem49 Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 Both men started off in the RE's and Major Mannock was still in the RE attached to the RFC. One point - is it Mannock or Mannoch? The Corps give it as Mannoch but others as Mannock. sm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy saunders Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 Loved the programme, well done to all involved in making it. Annette To answer Paul Reed's earlier point, yes I will try to sit down tonight and assemble a submission to the thread that might go some way to helpfully addressing some of the points raised and, perhaps, fill in a little more detail that we didn't have time to go into on the programme. Forgive me if I don't get it up here for a day or so. I am trying to finish a m/s for Grub Street Publishing and meet deadlines for "Britain at War" magazine (shameless plugs!!) which has all slipped in the last two weeks as No 2 son was home on mid-tour leave from Iraq. That enjoyable interlude has played havoc with a backlog of "stuff". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy saunders Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 Wasn't that always the case? Following on from my last posting, just got time to address this. It was always the case that the MOD were responsible for the identification/naming of any "new" discoveries of casualties but the CWGC had a free hand to change or amend details on headstones and memorials of casualties already in their care if they were satisfied that the details were incorrect. This could be carried out by the CWGC without reference to the MOD. Since a few years ago (I will add in the exact date when I reply more fully) the responsibility for such CWGC name changes reverted to the MOD and I believe that this was "post-Kipling" and probably arising out of issues over that case. The Mannock case has been the subject of a submission to the MOD for determination, but since the case is ongoing I hope all will appreciate that the status of the official deliberations is not really appropriate subject matter for discussion in any detail on an open forum. Not a case of obfuscation and I hope all will appreciate where I am coming from with that. Andy Saunders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 CWGC will not agree to graves being exhumed for the purpose of DNA testing. It has never happened and it is unlikely ever to happen. Do they have good reasons for this, Paul? Do they fear an avalanche of requests? Could each case not be judged on its merits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clio Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 There is a picture, not even a good picture, in P Hart's 'Aces Falling' which is nevertheless eloquent enough for me. It portrays the pathetic charred corpses extracted from von Richtofen's 74th kill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 I agree with the CWGC - disturbing remains for testing is unacceptable. But of course, we should make every effort with modern techniques to ID remains that are found - such as those at Fromelles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted 23 March , 2009 Author Share Posted 23 March , 2009 unfortunately iplayer is not available here but I have other irons in the fireI haven't checked by recording yet (I was out Saturday night and all day Sunday, so havn't watched it yet), but assuming it's OK I can burn DVDs for anyone who wants them, and can convert to NTSC for those in North Americaland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 23 March , 2009 Share Posted 23 March , 2009 Of course, disturbing the remains (or re-disturbing, as it`s probably not the first time) wouldn`t be done without good reason but with the aim of having the man in a marked grave with his name on the headstone. I think we owe the men that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now