Alan Abbott Posted 22 October , 2002 Share Posted 22 October , 2002 Thanks to you all (Paul, Lee, Jim, Dave, and John) who replied to my posting on Guillemont in the old Forum. Lee, As suggested I got hold of a copy of Michael Steadman's Battlefield Europe guide to Guillemont, it describes the action of the 30th July 1916 very well, but one thing it does do, is refers to the Royal Scots Fusiliers as the Royal Scots the whole way through the book !! I have noticed this is repeated through many books, one that springs to mind is Lyn McDonalds "Somme" where the opposite is the case where the mentions in the Index to Royal Scots Fusiliers are in fact to the Royal Scots in the main body of the book. Don't they employ proof readers anymore ? Does this happen a lot with any other regiments ? One that springs to mind must be The Camerionans and the Cameron Highlanders. Cheers, Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph J. Whitehead Posted 22 October , 2002 Share Posted 22 October , 2002 Alan, I cannot vouch for the British units but there was a thread on the old forum regarding the German units. I have seen many authors use the designation for an active regiment where a reserve regiment had been fighting. An example of this can be found in Middlebrook's book The First Day on the Somme where he mentions the 119th Infantry Regiment and provides the regimental name as well. Actually it was the 119th Reserve Regiment, a completely different unit and division. This same mistake appears in at least one of the Battleground Europe series. The author may have relied upon the Midlebrook book as a source thereby perpetuating the original error. I believe that the errors are missed because of a lack of understanding of the subtle differences between the various units on both sides of the wire. The proof readers probably know next to nothing about the war and specific unit details so it is quite probable that these mistakes will continue. This type of mistake can make it difficult for amateur researchers trying to locate information about a relative, etc. and send them off in the wrong direction. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 23 October , 2002 Share Posted 23 October , 2002 It does suprise me how many people use the Battleground Europe series as 'primary' source material, when it isn't - and I would inlcude my own books in that. All of them are the result of work in primary sources, but they are not primary sources themselves - and we should not treat them as such. Many, sadly, are full of mistakes and very often this has a lot to do with the way they are produced (but that is a subject in its own right!) Don't treat them with suspicion - but caution! No-one can be right 100% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 14 December , 2004 Share Posted 14 December , 2004 Paul, Thanks for this insight. I've always thought of the books this way, but find them to be a valuable resource. Currently I am reading through Neuve Chappel and there is an image of a German artillery piece firing a round. Of course I don't have the book with me at the moment, and I am poor with identifying pieces (other than some obvious ones). However as I recall this was a Minenwerfer. My question is, in the image there is a clearly discernable shell that has just left the breech of the weapon. It struck me as odd since I don't think there was a camera with a shutter speed fast enough to capture such an image. Is it possible this picture could have been doctored for affect? When I get home I'll look up the page reference, etc. Thanks, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 14 December , 2004 Share Posted 14 December , 2004 Wow, over two years between Paul and Andy's posts! Is that a record? Have you got too much time on your hands, Andy? Regards, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 14 December , 2004 Share Posted 14 December , 2004 I just like bringing up old threads... seeing anyone has something new to say. Ok, maybe I am a little bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 14 December , 2004 Share Posted 14 December , 2004 It is a truly impressive picture. Not as impressive as the photograph of a line of minenwerfers that are firing one after the other. So you can see several shells, each at different heights. Notice the barrels in full recoil for those minenwerfer that have fired. This is similar to the picture that you mention. While it is possible that the picture was doctored, minenwerfer had a very slow muzzle velocity. Several accounts describe the slow arc of the projectile through the air, with its lit fuze throwing off sparks as it travelled. The trail of sparks through the air looked quite impressive at night. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 15 December , 2004 Share Posted 15 December , 2004 Wow!... Wow! ok I am really impressed. My picture pales in comparison (which by the way is on p 59 of Geoff Bridger NC book). Sorry I don't have a scanner otherwise I would add the image. However if Robert's picture is accurate (which I assume it to be) the image in the book probably has not been altered. I am still amazed at the picture!! Andy 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